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

171–180 of 217 posts

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

#171

Post by mc32 »

ramblenode wrote: post #170
mc32 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more complicated because the reason someone may want to wear it is based on indoctrination. If you have a modern sect that indoctrinated its members to serve (labor, etc) the leadership and they do it voluntarily and in addition may balk at not doing it, posing their position as “a choice” is missing the context.

How is this any different from belief in general? Most people's beliefs are a product of their culture. We are all indoctrinated, whether it's religion, nationalism, or tuna casserole.

The ones handed down by institutions designed to indoctrinate you is different from culture in general which goes through natural filtering and change. Indoctrination usually follows some dogma with "interpreters" who tell you what it means.

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

#173

Post by Spooky23 »

1101010010 wrote: post #140
Spooky23 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try reading stuff not written for a gun audience. Lots of scenarios in American history exist where tribes were well equipped with repeating rifles while the Army was stuck with Civil War surplus or breechloaders. The 1870s army was a ramshackle affair underfunded and poorly maintained.

Ditto with the Boers and the British. The Brits weren’t faring well against mobile artillery and people not marching around with redcoats and brass. The Brits “won” when they put the families in concentration camps and half starved them.

Guns are powerful, but power doesn’t come from the barrel of a gun.

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

#174

Post by Spooky23 »

akomtu wrote: post #152
Spooky23 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It does prevent state violence the same way nukes prevent world wars. State violence rarely looks like soldiers vs citizens, because soldiers would rebel if they were given such an order. What tyrannical states do is they employ a third party, gangsters or cartels, that are given a carte-blanche to terrorize citizens. See what happened in Hong Kong: CCP hired Triads, those attacked citizens, while the riot police sta…

What happened in the United States when cheap guns began flooding the streets?

A: Tactical teams with automatic weapons, sometimes snipers or air support now serve warrants and raid moderate risk suspects.

We don’t have a tyrannical government. The US unrest scenario is different than China as the citizenry is neutral or pro-government, but you have a vocal minority. We have reactionary political parties that use armed LARPer militias to intimidate voters and influence policy.

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

#175

Post by 1101010010 »

sdfghswe wrote: post #157
1101010010 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not interested in discussing personal anecdotes.

None of what I said is anecdotal, but you only seem interested in the taste of licked boots, so this conversation is over.

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

#176

Post by ramblenode »

1101010010 wrote: post #123
sdfghswe wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me your claims are also personal anecdotes. You claim something, the other guy claims something else. The real difference is that you're claiming that the answer is universal, whereas the other guy is saying it depends. The way I see it you're making a stronger claim and thus have a higher burden of proof. And yet, you offered none.

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.

China never had a citizenry widely armed with firearms.

Germany was also never widely armed prior to Hitler. This is an urban myth.

Only a handful of societies have ever had widespread civilian armament. Certainly not enough to make any kind of causal inference about the general effects of firearms on revolutionary or counter-revolutionary activity.

And Wounded Knee? This was a continuation of a policy of Manifest Destiny and genocide that saw hundreds of massacres and battles. The many armed battles that took place would suggest that being armed wasn't a significant deterrent to US cavalry.

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

#177

Post by 1101010010 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #173
1101010010 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Try reading stuff not written for a gun audience. Lots of scenarios in American history exist where tribes were well equipped with repeating rifles while the Army was stuck with Civil War surplus or breechloaders. The 1870s army was a ramshackle affair underfunded and poorly maintained. Ditto with the Boers and the British. The Brits weren’t faring well against mobile artillery and people not marching around with red…

I'm trying to read it by asking you to cite something, but you have so far been unable to. "Lots of scenarios" is vague and you should be able to come up with at least a few specific examples to support your argument.

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

#178

Post by 1101010010 »

wizofaus wrote: post #144
1101010010 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The US is arguably the only country in the world where a significant % of citizens possess firearms. If US army decided to commit genocide against even some subset of those citizens, do you really think said firearms would help much? (Edit: more curiously, has there actually been an example of a democractically-elected government committing genocide?)

> If US army decided to commit genocide against even some subset of those citizens, do you really think said firearms would help much?

It worked well for Afghanistan, also Vietnam.

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

#179

Post by 1101010010 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #174
akomtu wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does prevent state violence the same way nukes prevent world wars. State violence rarely looks like soldiers vs citizens, because soldiers would rebel if they were given such an order. What tyrannical states do is they employ a third party, gangsters or cartels, that are given a carte-blanche to terrorize citizens. See what happened in Hong Kong: CCP hired Triads, those attacked citizens, while the riot police sta…

What happened in the United States when cheap guns began flooding the streets? A: Tactical teams with automatic weapons, sometimes snipers or air support now serve warrants and raid moderate risk suspects. We don’t have a tyrannical government. The US unrest scenario is different than China as the citizenry is neutral or pro-government, but you have a vocal minority. We have reactionary political parties that use arm…

Can you name just one example of a US armed "militia" intimidating a voter?

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

#180

Post by tadfisher »

colechristensen wrote: post #163
tadfisher wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're doing the classifying here. There is no single "left" position on this issue, because "the left" is not an entity. You got very close to self-awareness in your last paragraph, but projected onto it a twisted view of liberalism as an authoritarian morality police, which makes me question where you source your information.

To be clear, I’m explicitly calling out the average liberal as increasingly advocating for authoritarian solutions on many societal issues. Not the fringe, not a few, but the majority of the political left in the US. Do other people not see this?

You're going to have a hard time convincing others without naming those solutions and the mainstream liberal figures who support them.

In my experience, there's nothing exceptional about American liberalism in contrast with most of the Western world, while American conservatism has an unhealthy obsession with authoritarian solutions to problems that aren't problems: transgender people, women who don't want to be pregnant, people who want to marry those of the same sex, and books about any of the above that children might read.

Post reply on HN