4 ms·

Easy to say this from the comfort of your home. You don't live under the current regime.

the_af 4y ago
Can you restate in a form that is not a snark? What is "easy for me to say" because I don't live there? That before we (not Iranians) wish for the collapse of the current Islamic state, we should understand what it will mean for the people living there -- sure, no longer under the yoke of the Islamic Revolution, but very likely either dead from the destruction that will ensue, or under the yoke of whatever fundamentalist group moves in after, which is very likely to happen based on similar events in the region? In what sense it's "easy" for me to say, "think hard before wishing for violence on others 'for their own good'"? I'm sorry, but you cannot throw back my statement at me because I'm arguing for thoughtfulness.
- illiac786 4y ago
  I am saying it's easy to say " don't do anything", "be patient" or even "it could be worse" when you don't live there, just like it's easy to wish for the regime to fall. My point was, you seem to only perceive one side of the argument as being "easy from the comfort of our homes", your view is somehow not, because you think your view is neutral. But not taking action is a decision as well. It's a decision very easy to push for when you don't leave under the Iranian regime. I hope it's clearer.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Wishing for war/collapse is the "active" path, while urging caution is like the null-hypothesis (stretching the analogy a bit). You can reach the conclusion that violence is needed, after all -- I'm just urging more thoughtfulness, especially when the collapse is desired by people who don't have to live with the consequences. Consider that the Islamic Revolution was also the consequence of a collapse. Finally, let me reiterate I think the current regime is bad, and if there was a way to make it go away, as directed by Iranian people, without interference from other countries with vested interests not necessarily aligned with Iranians, I'd be all for it. Alas, magic solutions don't exist. The default option should always be non-violence/non-societal-collapse.
    - illiac786 4y ago
      I think the error is to assume staying with the current regime is non-violent. Maybe some urged the population to be cautious and patient in the eighties. Look where it got them. I am not saying a regime change is going to be peaceful, I am not saying it cannot be worse. I am saying they waited decades and it's only getting worse with the current regime. Asking them to exert caution feels sanctimonious and insensitive, this was what I was trying to convey in my initial message.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

Can you restate in a form that is not a snark? What is "easy for me to say" because I don't live there? That before we (not Iranians) wish for the collapse of the current Islamic state, we should understand what it will mean for the people living there -- sure, no longer under the yoke of the Islamic Revolution, but very likely either dead from the destruction that will ensue, or under the yoke of whatever fundamentalist group moves in after, which is very likely to happen based on similar events in the region? In what sense it's "easy" for me to say, "think hard before wishing for violence on others 'for their own good'"? I'm sorry, but you cannot throw back my statement at me because I'm arguing for thoughtfulness.

illiac786 4y ago
I am saying it's easy to say " don't do anything", "be patient" or even "it could be worse" when you don't live there, just like it's easy to wish for the regime to fall. My point was, you seem to only perceive one side of the argument as being "easy from the comfort of our homes", your view is somehow not, because you think your view is neutral. But not taking action is a decision as well. It's a decision very easy to push for when you don't leave under the Iranian regime. I hope it's clearer.
- the_af 4y ago
  Wishing for war/collapse is the "active" path, while urging caution is like the null-hypothesis (stretching the analogy a bit). You can reach the conclusion that violence is needed, after all -- I'm just urging more thoughtfulness, especially when the collapse is desired by people who don't have to live with the consequences. Consider that the Islamic Revolution was also the consequence of a collapse. Finally, let me reiterate I think the current regime is bad, and if there was a way to make it go away, as directed by Iranian people, without interference from other countries with vested interests not necessarily aligned with Iranians, I'd be all for it. Alas, magic solutions don't exist. The default option should always be non-violence/non-societal-collapse.
  - illiac786 4y ago
    I think the error is to assume staying with the current regime is non-violent. Maybe some urged the population to be cautious and patient in the eighties. Look where it got them. I am not saying a regime change is going to be peaceful, I am not saying it cannot be worse. I am saying they waited decades and it's only getting worse with the current regime. Asking them to exert caution feels sanctimonious and insensitive, this was what I was trying to convey in my initial message.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]