This mentality exhausts me. If people can stop treating geopolitics like a fucking sports match that would be great. We don’t have to root for anyone in a given conflict. We can acknowledge both sides are bad and not matter the outcome it will be bad for common people.
If we ever are able to do this we might actually have some progress. But until then we continue to worship inherently evil states
Imagine being so morally bankrupt, you can’t pick a side. It’s called critical support. I don’t support the actions of the Iranian state, but I support them in their defensive war against the global hegemon.
A) nobody mentioned any political party affiliation; if you want to fight people you’ve made up in your head, I recommend some grippy socks.
B) nobody has to support Iran. People support peace, which by definition means opposing the US in this conflict. Seeing as how this conflict literally has 2 sides, that definitionally means “supporting Iran.” If anything, YOU’RE the one boiling a desire for peace and stability down to “team sports.”
a) it’s an example to illustrate a point. You only have to be a very moderate lemmy user to know what I’m talking about.
b) The first sentence was correct. The rest you made up, but that’s okay you are right for the most part. Unfortunately some people don’t just mean supporting Iran in terms of the conflict with the US/Israel. If you look at the comment that I replied to you can see the user says that Iran should be supported because they oppose global hegemony. That extends far beyond the recent conflict.
In their mind the USA is the “enemy team” so whoever is up against them they will then be the “good team”. That’s exactly what the person I replied to is saying. It’s frankly sad and morally bankrupt.
I made nothing up. Iran didn’t begin this conflict. Iran doesn’t extend this conflict. Iran has attempted to deepen diplomatic ties with the US for over a decade; it’s the US that owns this conflict, full stop. If you want to argue for secularism, by all means, advocate against the ayatollah. If you want to argue for gender equality, LGBTQ+ equality, democracy, by all means, rally against the IRGC. But if you want a little more peace in the world, and not to worry about impending economic collapse from oil disruption, buddy you gotta stand against the US on this one. Bro can be a tankie, he’s like 0.2% of the electorate. It’s the 33% that want a christian theocracy, and the 1% that’ll give it to them for power, that are the real problem.
In their mind the USA is the “enemy team” so whoever is up against them they will then be the “good team”. That’s exactly what the person I replied to is saying. It’s frankly sad and morally bankrupt.
Yeah, the global hegemon which has been extracting resources from the rest of the world for the past 70 years is the bad guy. You’d have to have some kind of brain damage to dispute this fact.
This mentality exhausts me. If people can stop treating geopolitics like a fucking sports match that would be great. We don’t have to root for anyone in a given conflict. We can acknowledge both sides are bad and not matter the outcome it will be bad for common people.
If we ever are able to do this we might actually have some progress. But until then we continue to worship inherently evil states
Imagine being so morally bankrupt, you can’t pick a side. It’s called critical support. I don’t support the actions of the Iranian state, but I support them in their defensive war against the global hegemon.
Lmao, campism is for losers. Get on board with the west being the best or fuck off to whatever illiberal shithole you prefer.
Funny how your type will double down on how there’s no moral choice between democrats and Republicans
Yet somehow you can find the “moral” choice between a theocratic dictatorship (also capitalist btw) and an imperial nation.
Death to America.
A) nobody mentioned any political party affiliation; if you want to fight people you’ve made up in your head, I recommend some grippy socks.
B) nobody has to support Iran. People support peace, which by definition means opposing the US in this conflict. Seeing as how this conflict literally has 2 sides, that definitionally means “supporting Iran.” If anything, YOU’RE the one boiling a desire for peace and stability down to “team sports.”
Well said. Critical support for the defending nation doesn’t mean total support for the government.
a) it’s an example to illustrate a point. You only have to be a very moderate lemmy user to know what I’m talking about.
b) The first sentence was correct. The rest you made up, but that’s okay you are right for the most part. Unfortunately some people don’t just mean supporting Iran in terms of the conflict with the US/Israel. If you look at the comment that I replied to you can see the user says that Iran should be supported because they oppose global hegemony. That extends far beyond the recent conflict.
In their mind the USA is the “enemy team” so whoever is up against them they will then be the “good team”. That’s exactly what the person I replied to is saying. It’s frankly sad and morally bankrupt.
I made nothing up. Iran didn’t begin this conflict. Iran doesn’t extend this conflict. Iran has attempted to deepen diplomatic ties with the US for over a decade; it’s the US that owns this conflict, full stop. If you want to argue for secularism, by all means, advocate against the ayatollah. If you want to argue for gender equality, LGBTQ+ equality, democracy, by all means, rally against the IRGC. But if you want a little more peace in the world, and not to worry about impending economic collapse from oil disruption, buddy you gotta stand against the US on this one. Bro can be a tankie, he’s like 0.2% of the electorate. It’s the 33% that want a christian theocracy, and the 1% that’ll give it to them for power, that are the real problem.
Yeah, the global hegemon which has been extracting resources from the rest of the world for the past 70 years is the bad guy. You’d have to have some kind of brain damage to dispute this fact.