I dunno man there doesn’t seem to be the conditions for a self actualising revolution atm and isreal and the usa are undoubtably interfering. I mean the shah prince? the lion and sun flag? really?
Don’t get me wrong, braindead monarchists exist in iran and the diaspora in the same approximate proportion as every where stained by that transgression but this doesn’t seem like it’s going to lead to a government that cares for the people.
I hope I’m wrong but I am distinctly lukewarm on this. The current gov has been pretty effective at preventing organising and using misogyny as a wedge to divide the people.
Yes, it’s very likely there’s strong interference, but I also think that people put entirely too much faith on a rapidly collapsing empire like the USA and entirely too little faith on the people doing shit. I hope their revolution succeeds and then they turn their gifted arms against their wannabe manipulators and do their own thing. It wouldn’t be be the first or last time US interference has spectacularly backfired on them.
What I will say is that the only ones at fault for the revolution, as the corrupt theocrats at the top which have been so spectacularly bad at governing (and being decent human beings), they caused this.
At the end of the day, what some internet randos say on an obscure forum matters not at all. It’s just an excuse for more purity testing of allies.
I am not very hopeful personally, and my own opinions are largely relegated to shitting on people who think a king will solve problems and don’t know shit about why the theocracy was seen as a better alternative.
Who here is just pro-revolution independent of context? Violence is a tactic, not an end unto itself.
If your revolution is being propped up by fascist state that wants nothing more than to kill a bunch of your fellow citizens and steal your oil, there are some serious open questions about what your revolution seeks to achieve, and for whom.
Every popular movement will have agents of other nations hostile to the current regime acting in it. This isn’t a reason to oppose revolutionary movements, especially ones fighting against theocracies killing their own citizens. What we should be doing is opposing foreign intervention, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what we say online
I’m not saying this should be reflexively opposed. I’m saying that if a movement is accepting help from some of the worst people in the world, that movement deserves a great deal of skepticism.
Even if that’s what’s going on in Iran, no, it is in fact a revolution if one top is overthrowing another top as long as there’s enough non-top participation, which there is in Iran. What you’re thinking of is social revolution, which is a subcategory of revolution.
This is a huge tangent and a bit niche, but this guy kinda reminds me of the UK comic character Rupert Bear. Bit like Paddington, but never became as popular.
This guy was once telling the story of how he came across someone who was dressed almost exactly like Rupert Bear, so the guy thinks he’s doing cosplay and compliments him on the Rupert Bear costume. Except the other guy isn’t dressed up as Rupert Bear, he’s just very posh and dressed like a twat.
So he does not take the compliment kindly. At. All. LOL
you don’t support it but your position facilitates and enables it. a weak Iran is good for israel and the US.
recall everything you ever thought about Libya or Syria. How are those going? I don’t like the iranian government either but they aid Palestine and are standing against the greatest evil in the world.
Assuming I don’t know anything about the situation as a way to end the discussion is thought-terminating, not to mention condescending.
maybe you can reflect on why you are so often asked to be more informed.
Because people like you in your arrogance always think they always know more. Maybe you should reflect why you keep assuming you always know more than others and feel justified pleading for them to learn.
you never said it, no. but the material conditions of what are suggesting would have the outcome you are against.
revolution is not black and white, the oppressive power structures hold more weight than we know and will constantly be looking to co-opt a movement for their own desires.
And another revolution opposed by “revolutionaries”
I dunno man there doesn’t seem to be the conditions for a self actualising revolution atm and isreal and the usa are undoubtably interfering. I mean the shah prince? the lion and sun flag? really?
Don’t get me wrong, braindead monarchists exist in iran and the diaspora in the same approximate proportion as every where stained by that transgression but this doesn’t seem like it’s going to lead to a government that cares for the people.
I hope I’m wrong but I am distinctly lukewarm on this. The current gov has been pretty effective at preventing organising and using misogyny as a wedge to divide the people.
Yes, it’s very likely there’s strong interference, but I also think that people put entirely too much faith on a rapidly collapsing empire like the USA and entirely too little faith on the people doing shit. I hope their revolution succeeds and then they turn their gifted arms against their wannabe manipulators and do their own thing. It wouldn’t be be the first or last time US interference has spectacularly backfired on them.
What I will say is that the only ones at fault for the revolution, as the corrupt theocrats at the top which have been so spectacularly bad at governing (and being decent human beings), they caused this.
At the end of the day, what some internet randos say on an obscure forum matters not at all. It’s just an excuse for more purity testing of allies.
Yeah fair.
I am not very hopeful personally, and my own opinions are largely relegated to shitting on people who think a king will solve problems and don’t know shit about why the theocracy was seen as a better alternative.
I mean, we do say “No Gods, No Masters” for a reason. :D Fuck the Theocrats and fuck the Monarchists.
Who here is just pro-revolution independent of context? Violence is a tactic, not an end unto itself.
If your revolution is being propped up by fascist state that wants nothing more than to kill a bunch of your fellow citizens and steal your oil, there are some serious open questions about what your revolution seeks to achieve, and for whom.
Every popular movement will have agents of other nations hostile to the current regime acting in it. This isn’t a reason to oppose revolutionary movements, especially ones fighting against theocracies killing their own citizens. What we should be doing is opposing foreign intervention, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what we say online
I’m not saying this should be reflexively opposed. I’m saying that if a movement is accepting help from some of the worst people in the world, that movement deserves a great deal of skepticism.
Desperate people for freedom tend to not have a choice on whose help they accept, I can’t begrudge them that.
Revolutions start from the bottom and dismantle the top. It’s not a revolution if one top is overthrowing another top…
Even if that’s what’s going on in Iran, no, it is in fact a revolution if one top is overthrowing another top as long as there’s enough non-top participation, which there is in Iran. What you’re thinking of is social revolution, which is a subcategory of revolution.
By this logic every US election is a revolution 🤣
how many bottoms have to participate to ensure enough non-top participation?
I mean, you have massive protests all over Iran. I’d say that’s enough.
Nope that’s still not a revolution, that is just regime change.
And thus I refer you back to the original meme.
I got a better one for ya
This is a huge tangent and a bit niche, but this guy kinda reminds me of the UK comic character Rupert Bear. Bit like Paddington, but never became as popular.
This guy was once telling the story of how he came across someone who was dressed almost exactly like Rupert Bear, so the guy thinks he’s doing cosplay and compliments him on the Rupert Bear costume. Except the other guy isn’t dressed up as Rupert Bear, he’s just very posh and dressed like a twat.
So he does not take the compliment kindly. At. All. LOL
there was a legitimate movement and a much more violent co-opting of the moment by mossad.
maybe there’s better options than revolution when destabilizing the government would let the united states install a monarch?
Yea there was definitely no reason for Iranians to ever revolt against a fucking theocracy.
I never said I support the US intervening
you don’t support it but your position facilitates and enables it. a weak Iran is good for israel and the US.
recall everything you ever thought about Libya or Syria. How are those going? I don’t like the iranian government either but they aid Palestine and are standing against the greatest evil in the world.
Then they should try to not be theocratic shitheads. I hear it helps against revolutions
please learn literally anything about how the 20th century went in iran.
EDIT: Nevermind, I don’t care enough to insult you for your thought terminating cliches
imploring you to learn and consider the history of a situation is quite literally the opposite of thought-terminating.
if that has become a cliché in your life, maybe you can reflect on why you are so often asked to be more informed.
Assuming I don’t know anything about the situation as a way to end the discussion is thought-terminating, not to mention condescending.
Because people like you in your arrogance always think they always know more. Maybe you should reflect why you keep assuming you always know more than others and feel justified pleading for them to learn.
you never said it, no. but the material conditions of what are suggesting would have the outcome you are against.
revolution is not black and white, the oppressive power structures hold more weight than we know and will constantly be looking to co-opt a movement for their own desires.
And I wish their revolution the best of luck to avoid those