Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 217 posts

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#131

Post by paulryanrogers »

1101010010 wrote: post #72
paulryanrogers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's reductive, though women would be less frequently oppressed. I'm saying without cameras people will have more freedom to resist, in big and small ways. And with enough resistance they may enact meaningful change. Cameras are tightening the noose on the opposition to those in power.

> women would be less frequently oppressed. That does not logically follow; another technology would just as soon take the place of surveillance cameras (phone tracking, social stigma, stricter laws and punishment). It is the intent of the oppressor and the courage of a culture to resist it that matters most.

Not necessarily. And other methods may be less effective or less ubiquitous.

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#132

Post by paulryanrogers »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #90
paulryanrogers wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power. Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk.

[flagged]

If we're talking about fatalities then stats for gun deaths don't reinforce the argument that they are an unalloyed good, or that reducing their prevalence is impossible.

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#134

Post by CamperBob2 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #132
CamperBob2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If we're talking about fatalities then stats for gun deaths don't reinforce the argument that they are an unalloyed good, or that reducing their prevalence is impossible.

You seem to be arguing a point that was made by no one present in the conversation.

That aside, if you want to talk statistics, your biggest threat comes from the guns in the hands of your own country's police or military authorities. Sort of like the cameras under discussion.

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#135

Post by wetpaws »

victorcreator wrote: post #32

Meanwhile, feminists in the western world fight to wear a hijab, burkha, abaya, etc. and don’t see them as signs of oppression. I wish i understood the logic. Wish we could all stand up against this together.

[flagged]

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#137

Post by jabradoodle »

wetpaws wrote: post #135
victorcreator wrote: post #32

Meanwhile, feminists in the western world fight to wear a hijab, burkha, abaya, etc. and don’t see them as signs of oppression. I wish i understood the logic. Wish we could all stand up against this together.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#138

Post by paulryanrogers »

1101010010 wrote: post #80
sdfghswe wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This reminds me of the "guns don't kill people" argument. > Surveillance cameras have everything to do with consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands. Therefore fewer voices of dissent on the levers of power. > Iran is going through a demographic shift. The protests and strikes are evidence of a desire for change. With tools like this even small acts of defiance become higher risk. People with guns kill more p…

> People with guns kill more people than people without guns. The irony of this statement is government is historically responsible for the most deaths as they are best armed. When technology like firearms are decentralized and more people have access to them, fewer overall deaths occur and more individual freedom ensues. Same concept for cameras, when they are pointed at police and agents of the state by citizens.

> When technology like firearms are decentralized and more people have access to them, fewer overall deaths occur and more individual freedom ensues

What evidence proves this is true?

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#139

Post by 1101010010 »

sdfghswe wrote: post #128
1101010010 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre and follow with a middle school history book about Germany, China or about a dozen other nations.

That looks like a personal anecdote to me, exactly like what the other guy said. He said "in my country such and such happened". And you're saying "here's an example of such and such happening". EDIT: But now that we're at it, > The Wounded Knee Massacre, also known as the Battle of Wounded Knee, was a massacre of nearly three hundred Lakota people by soldiers of the United States Army. 300 people seems like nothing…

You asked for a citation, you were provided one. If you think 300 unarmed civilians being murdered by the government because of their race is "nothing" then there is nothing left to discuss. I am honestly worried about what you might think of Mao's China or Hitler's Germany and their respective civilian disarmament; I bet very few lives were lost to "civilian gun violence" under their rule, too.

Re: Iran installs cameras in public places to identify, penalise unveiled women

#140

Post by 1101010010 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #125
1101010010 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interested in discussing personal anecdotes, only factual history which is replete with examples of state-sponsored genocide and tyranny when the population is disarmed.

There’s nothing factual about that fantastical history. Possessing a firearm doesn’t prevent state violence, if anything it justifies further escalation. An armed rabble doesn’t have a chance against trained soldiers, and a citizen militia doesn’t have a chance against artillery. Ask the various native peoples, who at various times outgunned the then pitiful US Army, how well that worked out. Read the survivor accoun…

Which native peoples outgunned the US Army? Please provide a citation for such an outlandish claim.
Post reply on HN