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.
Breaking news: we’re all indoctrinated. That’s why men typically don’t run around wearing dresses, for example. Perhaps we should examine your beliefs for indoctrination? To use your indoctrination as an excuse to remove your bodily autonomy.
Targeted propaganda from the government is not the same as cultural norms
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…
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 standed behind and arrested _citizens_ who dared to push back. The same cannot happen in the US because the gangsters would be outnumbered 1000:1, and the order to engage soldiers against citizens would split the army into competing factions. Edit: when I say gangsters I don't mean those who rob banks, I mean radicalized mobs who are far more dangerous because their motive is not money, but ideological control.
Not equating. Drawing a parallel. If wearing too little is illegal in most places, why wouldn't it be possible to wear too much, in theory?
You are essentially at a point where you are saying “if I don’t like your outfit I’m going to legislate it.” You might be cool with that, but I’m not.
That’s a really bad faith argument. What’s up with people attempting to summarise someone else’s thought in the worst possible way and putting words in their mouths?
Some forms of dress and undress have laws. Others don’t have laws but are still bound by social contracts. The person you are replying to is clearing trying to compare these and pointing out responsibility may come down to the wearer in both cases and wondering out loud that society may punish any extreme state of dress.
At which point did he say you should pass new legislation or that he agreed with it?
It's real simple: "Don't take away my choice to wear what I want." For whatever reason, fragile people get real offended by what other people wear.
Do the people which get offended by nazi uniforms are fragile as well ? The topic is much more complicated than "fragility" as you are dismissively trying to portray it. We wear clothes in civilised societies for a reason, and different types of clothes have different types of societal effects. Your freedom ends where the the freedom of the next person's begins.
There's a bit of a difference between a religion, and a regime that, in its ten years of power, managed to kill tens of millions and start the largest and bloodiest war of all time.
A lot of Iranians see US foreign policy as aiding or even causing the current Iranian government.
Perhaps, that doesn't make it true though...
Causality in global geopolitics is complicated, multifactorial, and generally very difficult to pin down. The original comment was talking about the perceptions of Iranians, and my comments speaks to the perceptions I have seen.
US-Iran relations post-WW2 and why some Iranians see the US as a causal factor for the current repressive regime is a fascinating topic! If you want to explore, here are a few starting points:
> 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…
The US just invented an AI that, in a future version might one day be hooked up to all our cameras. I would like for us to start thinking about how we want that to play out now, rather than later. I hope you'll join us for that conversation.
CCTV cameras is a benign form of survelliance. In the future everyone will have to wear an AR ring on their heads, similar to what was shown in Watchmen, that ring, paired with attached eyeglasses will be an always online connection to the Internet, necessary for any participation in society, and the only input will be the "inner dialogue" speech that this ring device will detect in the speech-related regions of the brain.
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.
I'm not interested in discussing personal anecdotes.
At this point anyone who works in the “AI” image recognition space, no matter the company, must be aware that these are some of the consequences of his/her work, there’s no avoiding it.
I've personally known 2 women from Iran who are not fans of the US foreign policy, but become red with anger and visibly shaking when talking about their govt's treatment of women.
I've personally known 2 women from Iran who are not fans of the US foreign policy, but become red with anger and visibly shaking when talking about their govt's treatment of women.
I worked with an Iranian woman (in Canada) and she would look terrified and basically shut down if you mentioned the morality police.