8 ms·

This seems to only have a good track record in places with a democratic tradition. Some dictators have figured out you can just imprison and kill the opposition

This seems to only have a good track record in places with a democratic tradition. Some dictators have figured out you can just imprison and kill the opposition, and keep doing this until there is no more opposition. The Khomeini government is not going to just say "oh, you're right" and change. Neither will the Kim or Putin governments. Sometimes - sadly - violence is the least worst answer.

don_esteban 8mo ago
Re: Sometimes - sadly - violence is the least worst answer. The least worst for whom?! For normal Iranian people who just want to leave their life? I hate my current government. Do I think an armed uprising or a USA bombing campaign would would improve things? Heck NO!
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > normal Iranian people who just want to leave their life? Like the ones who are protesting? Idk, when people put themselves in front of a gun I'm inclined to listen to what they're demanding, not folks in their armchairs a world away.
- martin-t 8mo ago
  Differentiate legal, practical and moral reasons. Hitler was so bad that anybody is willing to publicly talk about killing him, there are movies glorifying it, people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler. He was so bad that the very strong taboo against killing does not work on him. So, when _exactly_ did it become OK to kill him? Think about it. What cumulative sum of his actions between 1889 and 1945 tipped the balance? Now, do those same rules apply to current dictators or people in the process of becoming dictators even if the taboo is still strong there?
  - don_esteban 8mo ago
    I do not understand what point are you making. Are you comparing Iran to Hitler?! That does not make sense whatsoever. If you mean 'At some point, you have to step in and make the change by force. Like we did with Hitler'. I will say: Yes, at some point it is justified to step in. But, there must be a realistic chance that you will make things better, and low chance that you will make things much, much worse. International consensus would be highly desirable, as well. In case of Iran: How sure are you that you can make a positive change in Iran by bombing only? If you kill (directly or indirectly, e.g. starvation/ruined water supplies) much more Iranians than Iranians killed themselves (like we did with Saddam), are you really helping? I don't think there is a will (and maybe not even a capability) for boots on the ground. So, you are just hoping that the new regime would be a better one. Not many positive historical examples there. Last, but not least: There are serious escalation dangers. What if China/Russia provided Iran with targeting data and/or missiles (not that Iran does not have their own) and Iran hit/sunk a carrier and some destroyers? Are you now in war with China/Russia? At what moment do you cross that line? Will you retreat with the tail between you legs, like from Afghanistan? Or will Israel decide to toss a nuke or two? The idealism of helping the poor protesters is a noble one, but the road to hell is paved by good intentions.
martin-t 8mo ago
Don't say sadly. Don't further the indoctrination that violence is bad. It is a tool, it cannot be good or bad. States are the most prolific users of violence (even more when you also count potential/threatened, not yet materialized). Anyone who wants to claim that violence is bad has to oppose the existence of states. Violence is risky, dangerous, unpredictable, costly, etc. But those are practical and legal, not moral, concerns. Violence is also necessary, as you say, against governments or other actors which cannot be deterred, stopped or punished using other means. Violence is also most effective when it's certain and overwhelming/indefensible. If we lived in a world where dictators and their flying monkeys get regularly shot or droned to death, we wouldn't have dictators. Not because they'd all end up dead but because nobody would dare try becoming or supporting one. This is why we have to publicly support _proportional_ punishment of dictators and their supporters, both now and after they've been removed from power. Good people have to use the same tools as bad ones (after all, they are just tools, not good or bad).
- NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
  But if violence is useful or even necessary, how can we pretend to be saintly pacifists?
  - martin-t 8mo ago
    Why would you want to, unless you live in a domain of indoctrination ("echo chamber") that pacifism is good and anything else is bad? I always find it useful to ask "why", whenever someone tells me their beliefs. Children do it and adults sometimes tend to find it annoying because they realize they cannot justify their beliefs but being children, they are easy to dismiss. Harder to dismiss an honest question from an adult.
- mjmsmith 8mo ago
  "Sadly" means "it's unfortunate that it got to the state where violence is necessary".
  - martin-t 8mo ago
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> seems to only have a good track record in places with a democratic tradition "All that said, there are very obviously regimes in the world that have rendered themselves more-or-less immune to non-violent protest. This isn’t really the place to talk about the broader concept of ‘coup proofing’ and how authoritarian regimes secure internal security, repression and legitimacy in detail. But a certain kind of regime operates effectively as a society-within-a-society, with an armed subset of the population as insiders who receive benefits in status and wealth from the regime in return for their willingness to do violence to maintain it. Such regimes are generally all too willing to gun down thousands or tens of thousands of protestors to maintain power. The late Assad regime in Syria stands as a clear example of this, as evidently does the current regime in Iran. Such regimes are not immune to an ‘attack on will,’ but they have substantially insulated themselves from it and resistance to these regimes, if it continues, often metastasizes into insurgency or protracted war (as with the above example of Syria) because the pressure has nowhere else to go" (Id.).

don_esteban 8mo ago

Re: Sometimes - sadly - violence is the least worst answer. The least worst for whom?! For normal Iranian people who just want to leave their life? I hate my current government. Do I think an armed uprising or a USA bombing campaign would would improve things? Heck NO!

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> normal Iranian people who just want to leave their life? Like the ones who are protesting? Idk, when people put themselves in front of a gun I'm inclined to listen to what they're demanding, not folks in their armchairs a world away.
martin-t 8mo ago
Differentiate legal, practical and moral reasons. Hitler was so bad that anybody is willing to publicly talk about killing him, there are movies glorifying it, people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler. He was so bad that the very strong taboo against killing does not work on him. So, when _exactly_ did it become OK to kill him? Think about it. What cumulative sum of his actions between 1889 and 1945 tipped the balance? Now, do those same rules apply to current dictators or people in the process of becoming dictators even if the taboo is still strong there?
- don_esteban 8mo ago
  I do not understand what point are you making. Are you comparing Iran to Hitler?! That does not make sense whatsoever. If you mean 'At some point, you have to step in and make the change by force. Like we did with Hitler'. I will say: Yes, at some point it is justified to step in. But, there must be a realistic chance that you will make things better, and low chance that you will make things much, much worse. International consensus would be highly desirable, as well. In case of Iran: How sure are you that you can make a positive change in Iran by bombing only? If you kill (directly or indirectly, e.g. starvation/ruined water supplies) much more Iranians than Iranians killed themselves (like we did with Saddam), are you really helping? I don't think there is a will (and maybe not even a capability) for boots on the ground. So, you are just hoping that the new regime would be a better one. Not many positive historical examples there. Last, but not least: There are serious escalation dangers. What if China/Russia provided Iran with targeting data and/or missiles (not that Iran does not have their own) and Iran hit/sunk a carrier and some destroyers? Are you now in war with China/Russia? At what moment do you cross that line? Will you retreat with the tail between you legs, like from Afghanistan? Or will Israel decide to toss a nuke or two? The idealism of helping the poor protesters is a noble one, but the road to hell is paved by good intentions.

martin-t 8mo ago

Don't say sadly. Don't further the indoctrination that violence is bad. It is a tool, it cannot be good or bad. States are the most prolific users of violence (even more when you also count potential/threatened, not yet materialized). Anyone who wants to claim that violence is bad has to oppose the existence of states. Violence is risky, dangerous, unpredictable, costly, etc. But those are practical and legal, not moral, concerns. Violence is also necessary, as you say, against governments or other actors which cannot be deterred, stopped or punished using other means. Violence is also most effective when it's certain and overwhelming/indefensible. If we lived in a world where dictators and their flying monkeys get regularly shot or droned to death, we wouldn't have dictators. Not because they'd all end up dead but because nobody would dare try becoming or supporting one. This is why we have to publicly support _proportional_ punishment of dictators and their supporters, both now and after they've been removed from power. Good people have to use the same tools as bad ones (after all, they are just tools, not good or bad).

NoMoreNicksLeft 8mo ago
But if violence is useful or even necessary, how can we pretend to be saintly pacifists?
- martin-t 8mo ago
  Why would you want to, unless you live in a domain of indoctrination ("echo chamber") that pacifism is good and anything else is bad? I always find it useful to ask "why", whenever someone tells me their beliefs. Children do it and adults sometimes tend to find it annoying because they realize they cannot justify their beliefs but being children, they are easy to dismiss. Harder to dismiss an honest question from an adult.
mjmsmith 8mo ago
"Sadly" means "it's unfortunate that it got to the state where violence is necessary".
- martin-t 8mo ago

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> seems to only have a good track record in places with a democratic tradition "All that said, there are very obviously regimes in the world that have rendered themselves more-or-less immune to non-violent protest. This isn’t really the place to talk about the broader concept of ‘coup proofing’ and how authoritarian regimes secure internal security, repression and legitimacy in detail. But a certain kind of regime operates effectively as a society-within-a-society, with an armed subset of the population as insiders who receive benefits in status and wealth from the regime in return for their willingness to do violence to maintain it. Such regimes are generally all too willing to gun down thousands or tens of thousands of protestors to maintain power. The late Assad regime in Syria stands as a clear example of this, as evidently does the current regime in Iran. Such regimes are not immune to an ‘attack on will,’ but they have substantially insulated themselves from it and resistance to these regimes, if it continues, often metastasizes into insurgency or protracted war (as with the above example of Syria) because the pressure has nowhere else to go" (Id.).