Well, that does mean that he wishes traffic didn't exist (and, in this case, I'm actually with him). I'm not sure that makes "death to America" any more peaceful.
All they want is for us to not exist anymore... in their region. Influencing their lives. Influencing their politics. That’s all they have ever wanted. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan… they just want the US to get the fuck out.
Every major problem the US has in the Middle East is self inflicted.
The “embassy” in Iraq isn’t an embassy. It a city. At 100 acres and 15,000+ personnel, it’s larger than many cities.
The idea is the contexts in which such a statement is chosen to be uttered is important, and not just the possible interpretations of the statement given content: just as how the Iranian taxi driver says "death to traffic" offhandedly, so the US driver says "fuck this traffic" offhandedly, and just as the Iranian says "death to the US" offhandedly but not "death to traffic", so the US citizen says "fuck the government" offhandedly. In any case, neither mean to literally destroy or bugger the nation.
So to the extent that "death to X" conveys a strong hatred with probable signification of action in English, it is a mistranslation, since "death to X" in Iranian conveys a frustration that has not been analyzed much or that belies an intention for planned action, which is more similar to "fuck X" in English.
Is the same expression true in Arabic as well? There’s no shortage of translated crowds yelling “death to X” in many countries beyond Iran.
Also, can anyone translate the bottom of the mural that has bombs and skulls with the American flag? To a non-native it’s hard to tell if this is a criticism of the US (supporting the article) or in fact suggesting to bomb the US (thus supporting death to America).
I don't speak Farsi, but I know the Arabic alphabet (which is used in a modified form to write it). The text at the bottom is the same "marg bar Amrika" being discussed by this piece, which is why this image is used as an example of Iranians translating "marg bar" as "down with".
They're claiming that the US is about bombs and skulls. Which seems like a fair enough argument. I mean, consider that Yale's Skull and Bones apparently collects notable skulls.
There’s few countries that aren’t. After all, all current country borders / cultures / languages / people are the result of thousands of years of war. Many are actively killing either their own people, neighbors, or involved indirectly in proxy wars including both the US and Iran.
The text does indeed say marg bar America, the phrase being discussed in the article. The bombs aren't supposed to indicate "let's drop them on America", but rather are intended to represent the bombs dropped by Americans: the intent of the mural is to criticize America's military interventions.
The United States of America is a poorly designed political science experiment. It provides no means to peacefully revoke consent to be governed. There's no peaceful way out of the experiment, and so it violates a standard ethical norm for science experiments.
I seek the death/transformation of any science experiment not allowing for peacefully revoking consent to participate in said experiment.
Note: if revocation of consent leads to forceful removal from the country, I consider this to be a response that is not peaceful.
If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Iran would gladly send you to the gallows if you deemed it's religious leader - Ayatollah, also the political leader by design, as Iran is a religious state with no minority rights, a 'bad' political experiment.
And China/Russia would know your probability of saying so a-priori, given their blanket surveillance generating social credibility scores.
Back in the 19th century, Herman Melville documented an apparently stable society in Typee. It was however, not without violence -- some of it so appalling to most readers that the novel barely hints at it.
I think people overstate the problems witr Democracies vs. Republics. Looking at the history of the U.S. there is very little evidence to suggest that Republicanism has resulted in a non-tyranical majority rule. In fact, the only thing I can see that has maintained any rights for social, political and racial minorities in U.S. history is the Bill of Rights Andrew that frequently ignored or tempered until the post WWII era.
Cause it's where I live and it's where the cultures and legal systems I'm attempting to hack are located. It's the state asserting itself over my child in some way, which I don't recognize as mine to give away on their behalf. And that's a religious standpoint, so I'm curious how the US might handle this situation.
It does beg broader questions about potentially every government, as well.
Well, a good hack has to actually work. I think you need a different avenue of attack, because the one your trying isn't going to work, ever, anywhere.
A good hack is experimental and scientific, designed to test hypotheses.
"the one your trying isn't going to work, ever, anywhere" is an assumption worth converting into an hypothesis and testing the shit out of cause it's a super disempowered stance to take.
What leads you to say it isn't going to work, ever, anywhere?
Government is that which can make its rules apply to you, even if you don't want them to. Saying "I never consented to these rules" works only if the government says it does.
And for the government to say that the rules don't apply to you, while you remain within the area ruled by that government, is to ask for the government to become a voluntary organization, that is, no longer really a government. Since more of us what a functioning government than want what you want, that would be asking the government to abdicate its responsibility. So... yeah. You're not going to get it.
And, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" didn't mean the consent of each individual. It meant the consent of the group.
Back to hacks. A hack, in my book, is an unconventional, unexpected way of doing something. A way that breaks the rules, even. But not a way of beating your head against a wall. For it to be a hack, it has to work.
> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good?
I'll throw my hat in the ring and suggest sortition (think jury duty, but for 2 years at a time, as the representative of your district/state): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
There's still an argument for some level of direct democracy (ballot initiatives, but especially to throw out inevitable corruption/idiocy of representatives); though perhaps the threshold should be higher (such as 66% rather than 50%+1).
Bryan Caplan [0] and Jason Brennan [1] have made very sound arguments about voting bringing out our worst tribalist instincts, rather than the informed, enlightened voter that was fantasized by the Constitutional framers. The strongest case for democracy-as-we-know-it is simply the peaceful transfer of power, which it seems to accomplish surprisingly well; but in terms of sound policy, or reflecting the will of We The People, its track record isn't exactly stellar.
(That said, as long as our system is still driven by the vote, we would stand to benefit from bottom-up electoral reform, such as switching from First-Past-The-Post to Ranked-Choice or Approval voting [2].)
Getting 2/3 of a large group to agree on anything is damn near impossible. I think the American system does a pretty good job of balancing popular and regional concerns and has some democratic elements that require 50% + 1 and many things that require larger majorities.
My thinking is that there should be a high bar to spend public funds or leverage the state's monopoly on violence (and believe me, I'm not reflexively anti-statist: I'm all for infrastructure and social safety nets, etc).
Practically, I understand the concern. I think our hyper-partisan politics has us accustomed to a 51/49 dynamic that occasionally flips sides; my hypothesis is that reducing democratic influence on representation (in favor of RNG), coupled with electoral reform for the democratic processes that remain, would make it far more feasible to build consensus in the range of 60-80%.
To unpack the latter: my preferred system is Approval Voting, as it definitionally measures the greatest quantity of "consent of the governed", and game-theoretically rewards compromise and consensus. A person or policy that is extremely popular among 55% can potentially be outcompeted by one that is moderately popular among 75%.
This is a thing! Holy crap! For years now I've been telling anyone who would listen that we're underutilizing randomness as a guard against corruption.
If we were inventing a new system out of whole cloth, I think there's a strong case for refactored bicameralism: one House of Congress for elected representatives, and another House for citizens chosen at random ("The People's Congress").
The old women wept when the King decreed democracy.
> Bhutan's political system has recently changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck transferred most of his administrative powers to the Council of Cabinet Ministers and allowed for impeachment of the King by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.[38]
In your context of all of the other “political science experiments” (e.g. governments) you think the USA is poorly designed? What experiments do you think were better designed in that case?
One great thing about our experiment is that you have a lot of liberty, included your constitutional right to travel. You can live in other cities and states which more closely align with your ideologies without ever needing to even think of violence of force.
Or, if you can't find a home here in any of our states or cities, you're welcome to seek a new home anywhere in the world.
That's the kind of liberty our experiments grants you.
Yep. And I'm grateful for it. And want more liberty than that.
Also, I think Bhutan shifting their government to metrics based around well-being is a great example of orienting the state away from money and toward human needs.
And I don't know of a state that's been designed to fully meet the human need of autonomy.
I'd like to design and implement one, perhaps through exercising the inalienable right to found a nation, just as the founders of the USA did. Or did they found a nation only to strip people of the right to found their own nation?
This is a fairly general argument for abolishing government, period, and not a specific criticism of the U.S.
If anyone can unilaterally decide not to be governed, then the government ceases to have any purpose. I think there's definitely a case to be made for allowing people to have more personal control, but what you're advocating is basically anarchy.
My own personal opinion based on no data whatsoever is that you're way underestimating the number of people who would be authoritarian jerks under the right circumstances. I think the numbers are reversed, only 10-20% of people wouldn't become authoritarian jerks under any circumstances, so it's important to build systems that limit the damage that authoritarian jerks can do.
Yeah and terror has a way of making those authoritarian jerks come out of the woodwork. See the repeated variously aligned purges of the French Revolution.
A request for ad hoc processes to design a new process oriented toward better meeting needs?
Example: today, I was in court to convert traffic fines to community service. I was then informed community service must be performed for a 501c.3 to be recognized by the court.
Society and the government don't typically consider parenting or healing oneself physically/mentally/emotionally as something to be valued the same way as any paying job. Both take work and arebeneficial to society & the government, but people who help others accomplish those goals are currently paid/valued far more in capitalism.
So, I'm starting a 501c.3 to validate time spent parenting, supporting parents, healing and supporting healing for legal community service. The board will likely be stacked with anarchists (initially) and may be required to demonstrate a willingness to operate as such. In the face of by-laws requirements, this may be tricky to codify.
In any case, I see this as a way to starve the government of fines levied against people who fall into any of those categories (which can easily be met by anyone simply by hanging out with friends). Or at least I think it can apply to anyone. If I'm leaving anyone out, let's try to expand the mission to easily include them!
So we starve the state together through forming a nonprofit while meeting human needs.
It'd be nice if we could just say "This requirement doesn't meet my needs. Can we figure out another arrangement that doesn't require so much administrative overhead? I'm a full-time parent seeking to minimize the amount of time away from my child until I have broader solidaritous community support in my life."
I can write more on this, as this idea spawned out of already-in-place thoughts on peacefully revoking consent to be governed (for Lent and for All). But first I'm going to eat, clean the living room, and meditate on the nonprofit more while my partner and child nap.
Also, it's totally anarchy. Temporary anarchy. I view the rigid dedication to "one governance system at all times" is a cultural artifact of static thinking. Neuroplasticity and grown mindsets are a thing. The science of learning how to learn suggest we operate in a more fluid fashion. Same for cultural evolution. Let's redesign everything from these recent perspectives instead of clinging to ancient paradigms.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments! I think such a thing as temporary anarchy is almost impossible to achieve in practice. There is entropy in human organizations and it's much easier to break things than to build them. I believe if you make it too easy to break things, even if you have the best of intentions and intend to rebuild them, you will just end up with a lot of broken things. In my experience, people tend to drastically underestimate how difficult it is to build things.
I read your comment below, and I really like what you said about parenting and healing, by the way. I also think that learning to create things together without the permission of governments or corporations is something that we would all benefit from very much. I'm not sure it's necessary to throw off the shackles of government to make a lot of real, concrete improvements in the way we live.
Going from the assertion that there's no way for a polity to revoke its consent to be governed (whereas in some states elected officials are subject to recall via the ballot box) does not translate to 'anyone can decide not to be governed.' If it was a misunderstanding then OK, but I can't understand why you'd interpret a broad comment about the design of the federal government as a proposal for unilateral individual sovereignty.
This experiment was more practical in an earlier era. If we look back to Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address (which is worth reading in full), he commented: By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
In Lincoln's day, rail travel and the telegraph were the cutting edge of technology; news was beginning to commonly travel faster than it could be carried by couriers on horseback. (Of course, long-distance signaling systems existed for centuries before that, but had very low bandwidth and were at the mercy of weather conditions). Now we are in an era of ubiquitous instantaneous communications in developed countries (which I'll define here as any country with functioning electrical/cellphone infrastructure). One ramification of this is the use of mass networking services like Telegram, Whatsapp etc. as the organizing medium for political demonstrations/uprisings in numerous countries around the world.
18th-century social/political technology is no longer responsive to the tempo of a 21st century world. And while it would be a mistake to situate the mechanisms of the government in the fastest conceivable context (as evidenced by volatility in financial markets), being locked in to various years-long political cycles (particularly the 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 year cycles of the American political calendar) clearly comes with a cost of reduced flexibility as well as a benefit of increased stability. Like a tank falling into a ditch, once it passes a tipping point of instability there's no bringing it back.
This is brilliant. It reminds me of the way "We will bury you"[0] was used to imply that Krushchev wanted to destroy America rather than say "history is on our side, and when your philosophy dies we will be there at its funeral" as it is possible he meant. I love this.
It's common to hear things like "tu abuela nos entierra a todos" (Grandma will bury us all) to imply she's really healthy for her age. I never even considered the alternative and more sinister possible meaning.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair
It would be very inconvenient for a lot of people's agendas to not be able to portray the folks who use this slogan as bloodthirsty savages hell bent on destroying us.
It would also be very inconvenient for a lot of people’s agendas for it to be socially acceptable to take what they say at face value instead of trying to cover it up with some kind of absurd psychobabble
Yes obviously “death” can be used in more than one way, when it’s chanted in combination with violence I think it’s safe to assume it’s probably the more literal interpretation
Muslim extremists just hate anyone who is not muslim. That's why Iran is in the place they are right now. These people hate with all their hearts, minds, and souls. When has the U.S. chanted "Death to ___"? When have Americans wished a whole group of people to be wiped out of the face of the earth? This is just every day for them. If it's not Americans, it's Jews, if not some other group. They won't be happy until they're the only ones left.
This seems like a dogwhistle. Basically, all the various groups that really do hate America feel happy with "Death to America", while still being able to say, that that phrase only really means "Down with America."
Given that this phrase was used during the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979, and is often accompanied by flag burning, probably a significant part of the crowds chanting that slogan do actually want death to come to individual Americans.
A dogwhistle is where the vast majority of people perceive something as innocuous (or don't notice it at all) and only those with the appropriately sensitive ears can pick up the real meaning.
> Given that this phrase was used during the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979, and is often accompanied by flag burning, probably a significant part of the crowds chanting that slogan do actually want death to come to individual Americans.
That is one stupid inference- a complete non sequitur.
The article claims that the people still desire to see our leadership topple. I doubt most of the people chanting the phrases want to see "individual Americans" die but want to see our government die.
The chants protest the U.S. killing of Soleimani, who was indeed responsible for the deaths of many Americans. Given this context, I think many of the demonstrators chanting "Death to America" should be taken literally.
A valuable article; american media so reflexively reports the 'death to America' line with regard to Iran that it has become a staple of American nationalist mythology at this point.
The US (or more specifically, boomers, who still dominate policy and politics to a large extent) has (have) never gotten over the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-90, when the Iranian revolution took American embassy staffers hostage for months on end. Conservatives still demonize Jimmy Carter over it, mostly forgetting the fact that Carter actually tried a military response which failed dismally due a lack of military preparedness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
You could see a vivid example of this over the weekend when President Trump tweet-threatened to strike 52 sites of national or cultural importance to Iran 'representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran'. In general, rational factors are an input to policy, but many political currents are emotionally driven, and humiliation is a particularly toxic emotion that Trump has historically harped on; whether that's a cynical populist strategy or a personal hangup is a matter of conjecture. Of course, this works both ways; you could argue that Iran's selection of Ahmadinejad and Rouhani were to a large extent driven by their perceptions of George Bush and Barack Obama public personae.
But didn’t you read it? They don’t really mean it! Orange man bad, you’re gonna get drafted for World War 3, be sure to get out and vote this December btw. And then when you do and we bomb the same people 3 years from now please clap for our patriotic defense of America.
yes! orange man so bad, we really shouldn't be arguing semantics here. death to america is a perfectly fine thing to say. i mean who really cares about actions anymore, its been all about feelings since 2016
Not really, it would be an argument that when Americans say "Death to Iran," it would be reasonable to take it at face-value. I don't really hear many people saying that, so maybe more accurately when politicians say (on Twitter, or otherwise) that they're going to attack a retaliate against a country, it's not some turn of phrase, they mean it literally.
Wag The Dog: First was feigned impeachment hearings meant to obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $84+ billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 600+ deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty. See latest
\\See latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 130.
\\case;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this 146pg doc, last updated today:
Accepts a $3 billion dollar bribe at 1033 am on the 17th of Jan 2019 to ensure Asian boys can get through the border at "Monterey" undocumented to be raped:
\\See latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 130.
\\case;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this 146pg doc, last updated today:
Accepts a $3 billion dollar bribe at 1033 am on the 17th of Jan 2019 to ensure Asian boys can get through the border at "Monterey" undocumented to be raped:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi also "preps" boys with First Lady Melania Trump, defined as in she performs oral sex on the boys’ penis and anus, as a child rapist like Henry Porter would, while trying to remove fecal matter from the boy prior to handing them over to be raped and then subsequently mur...
My wife can testify that me saying "marg bar balesh" (death to pillow) every night does not mean that I want to stab my pillow to death, rather that it hurts my neck(+) when I use a soft pillow in bed.
+ Fortunately, with a new hard medical pillow I feel much better nowadays.
I went to school and grew up in Iran. Chanting death to America and Israel and even to poor (already) dead Shah was part of an official ritual every morning in the school.
As a teenager, you don't grasp what you're saying. You're just part of the crowd. In an environment that there's almost no other forms of entertainment at reach; you feel powerful in these rallies. It's like being in a rock concert and singing the songs.
I imagine most people that show up in the rallies these days have nothing else to do. It's a recreational event for most.
Actually I think this is exactly what makes this culture most dangerous. There are big crowds of mostly low or unemployed people blindly following their leaders. And they enjoy it the same way that you enjoy a sport event or a concert.
I speak Farsi and 'death to America', well means death to America. I even didn't know about the historical reference mentioned in the post. But I doubt that the big majority of the individuals that are shouting death to something truly mean it.
Thanks for this comment. This has changed my view somewhat on the Iran situation.
I originally thought it was pretty dumb of Trump to tear up the nuclear deal, escalate tensions, and most recently basically try to start a war (by killing a high level government official).
But if "death to America" is literally being indoctrinated into their whole society, maybe war is inevitable, and better for it to start on our terms, when we have an advantage, instead of (say) wringing our hands and kicking the can down the road until they have nukes, like we did with North Korea. Maybe Trump's stance on this issue might not be so crazy?
You missed the entire point of the article and your analysis from what you misunderstood is also somewhat daft.
Supporting war because "[it] is inevitable, and better for it to start on our terms, when we have an advantage"
__is__ insane and is not a defensible position.
Are you arguing it’s better to go to war flat footed? I’m pretty sure the ayatollahs and their commanders would disagree with your strategy, not just the US.
I think the parent is disputing the notion that war is inevitable. Obviously if you start with that premise you can justify all sorts of actions that would otherwise seem immoral/insane.
Even after years of being brained washed by the media and the educational system, a typical middle class millennial in Iran does not hate Western culture or America.
Older generations (even in some rural areas) have fond memories of Americanization of Iran in the 70s (which finally led to the Islamic revolution).
The problem that I see with Trump's approach is that it alienates these groups of people that had been pro-American before.
The country and the economy was thriving for a brief couple of years after the nuclear deal. People used their money to visit Gulf countries, east Asia and Europe. I think Internet speed almost doubled in that period.
But new sanctions made the economy collapse. And Muslim ban is a real thing if you are born in Iran. And it does not matter how pro-American you are.
Then now we ended up in a situation that even ordinary, middle class Iranians that could've been in American camp, are feeling under attack by a bully. For them everything that the government has been preaching about the great Satan is coming true.
The Iranian government recently murdered at least 200 (according to the UN and Amnesty International) and perhaps over 1000 (according to US officials) unarmed Iranian civilians. Many were shot in the back as they ran away. [1,2]
How can Iranians still support that government?
Sanctions are probably the wrong approach - they tend to hurt ordinary people far more than the government - but if I were Iranian, living under a regime that's willing to shoot me in the back, I'd hope for regime change.
I would like to comment - respectfully - I hope. I do believe death to America is the literal intent. I think the author of the article below is somehow attempting to sugar coat the saying as a means of arming a sympathetic audience on social media. I wonder if those images in the article are even real (upon first glance I honestly couldn't tell). Personally, I am a free speech absolutist. If one feels more comfortable saying death to America, or bah to America, or good will, you idiots, I do not care as none of these sayings are offensive to me. I'd rather you be clear about your feelings than to sugar coat them. I also would say that over the years, my own stance towards Iran has moderated and become more sympathetic. I am ok with an Iran that does not agree with our priorities and I do not think regime change is the optimal outcome. Further, I don't think the killing of Soliemani was intended to signal we intend to change the regime. I think rather it was asking a question in a way that it couldn't be mistaken for anything else. And that question is simple -- "do you really want to do this?" I think Soliemani's funeral can be symbolic (if nothing else) in this respect: It's time for Iran's leadership to give this era of zero sum foreign policy a proper burial.
> I would like to comment - respectfully - I hope. I do believe death to America is the literal intent.
You're not respectful, as you're insulting 80 million people by saying they all want to murder you and other hundreds of million.
You're not being intelligent either, because you're wilfully ignoring the fact that literal translations from one language to another are incorrect.
Even Google translate is in fact smarter than you are: just paste مرگ بر آمریکا into it and see what it prints out.
> Further, I don't think the killing of Soliemani was intended to signal we intend to change the regime. I think rather it was asking a question ... It's time for Iran's leadership to give this era of zero sum foreign policy a proper burial.
Wait, wait. The Iran had an agreement with the rest of the world, all of it. It agreed to a very strict regime of inspections and halting its nuclear program in exchange for an increased freedom to commerce with the rest of the world. This was a win-win for all, the opposite of a zero sum game. Trump has reneged the agreement, against the opinions of everybody else, and imposed a complete economic embargo on Iran through sanctions on anybody who does commerce with it. It is chocking the entire country. This is a zero sum game.
What the US is doing is strangling a country of 80 million- a bloodless death but death nonetheless. And if the dying country kicks and struggles, you say "enough with the zero sum game"? Really?
>As a teenager, you don't grasp what you're saying. You're just part of the crowd.
This is pretty much how reciting the Pledge of Allegiance felt when I was growing up. We'd stand and recite it at the start of every day of elementary school, but no one really paid too much attention to the words themselves and their meaning.
The nuanced verbiage of the article is overshadowed by the lead graphic, showing the US leader being punched. This, along with current context of Iranian-organized mob assaults on the US embassy in Iraq (including burning the lobby), plus plenty of other incidents, makes it hard to accept the "they're just saying they don't like meanies" explanation.
Trump is choking Iran after reneging an agreement the whole world had taken, and that Iran was respecting to the letter. What would you say if Iran prevented your country from having commercial exchanges with any other country in the world? Just imagine that.
...he writes, conveniently overlooking the human rights abuses and threats against neighbors which induce the sanctions. Hanging gays for being gay, beating/jailing women for not wearing scarves, frequently declaring intent to bomb Israel for merely existing, obviously building nukes for that purpose, funding & operating terrorism worldwide (hence Soleimani hit), normalizing "Death to America" chants nationwide, etc. Stop bullying others and others will stop sanctions.
114 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadEvery major problem the US has in the Middle East is self inflicted.
The “embassy” in Iraq isn’t an embassy. It a city. At 100 acres and 15,000+ personnel, it’s larger than many cities.
So to the extent that "death to X" conveys a strong hatred with probable signification of action in English, it is a mistranslation, since "death to X" in Iranian conveys a frustration that has not been analyzed much or that belies an intention for planned action, which is more similar to "fuck X" in English.
should read ', and just as the Iranian says "death to the US" offhandedly,'
Ask how they actually would say “death to America”. It’s going to be the same. So now this interview gives cover to those who are on the fence.
Also, can anyone translate the bottom of the mural that has bombs and skulls with the American flag? To a non-native it’s hard to tell if this is a criticism of the US (supporting the article) or in fact suggesting to bomb the US (thus supporting death to America).
The United States of America is a poorly designed political science experiment. It provides no means to peacefully revoke consent to be governed. There's no peaceful way out of the experiment, and so it violates a standard ethical norm for science experiments.
I seek the death/transformation of any science experiment not allowing for peacefully revoking consent to participate in said experiment.
Note: if revocation of consent leads to forceful removal from the country, I consider this to be a response that is not peaceful.
And China/Russia would know your probability of saying so a-priori, given their blanket surveillance generating social credibility scores.
That's a tough question, given human nature.
From what I've read, I'd say some Native American cultures, which were ~stable for thousands of years. Also some parts of Polynesia.
I'd say the Hopi. The Iroquois Confederacy also comes to mind. But they were quite warlike. Definitely not the Comanche.
Switzerland, one the only real democracy.
The Swiss were denying women the vote in federal elections until the early 1970s.
And that's the problem with 'tyranny of the masses' - popular isn't the measure of good, just or rational.
Does any country allow that? No.
So why pick on the US?
It does beg broader questions about potentially every government, as well.
"the one your trying isn't going to work, ever, anywhere" is an assumption worth converting into an hypothesis and testing the shit out of cause it's a super disempowered stance to take.
What leads you to say it isn't going to work, ever, anywhere?
And for the government to say that the rules don't apply to you, while you remain within the area ruled by that government, is to ask for the government to become a voluntary organization, that is, no longer really a government. Since more of us what a functioning government than want what you want, that would be asking the government to abdicate its responsibility. So... yeah. You're not going to get it.
And, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" didn't mean the consent of each individual. It meant the consent of the group.
Back to hacks. A hack, in my book, is an unconventional, unexpected way of doing something. A way that breaks the rules, even. But not a way of beating your head against a wall. For it to be a hack, it has to work.
I'll throw my hat in the ring and suggest sortition (think jury duty, but for 2 years at a time, as the representative of your district/state): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
There's still an argument for some level of direct democracy (ballot initiatives, but especially to throw out inevitable corruption/idiocy of representatives); though perhaps the threshold should be higher (such as 66% rather than 50%+1).
Bryan Caplan [0] and Jason Brennan [1] have made very sound arguments about voting bringing out our worst tribalist instincts, rather than the informed, enlightened voter that was fantasized by the Constitutional framers. The strongest case for democracy-as-we-know-it is simply the peaceful transfer of power, which it seems to accomplish surprisingly well; but in terms of sound policy, or reflecting the will of We The People, its track record isn't exactly stellar.
(That said, as long as our system is still driven by the vote, we would stand to benefit from bottom-up electoral reform, such as switching from First-Past-The-Post to Ranked-Choice or Approval voting [2].)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Democracy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Practically, I understand the concern. I think our hyper-partisan politics has us accustomed to a 51/49 dynamic that occasionally flips sides; my hypothesis is that reducing democratic influence on representation (in favor of RNG), coupled with electoral reform for the democratic processes that remain, would make it far more feasible to build consensus in the range of 60-80%.
To unpack the latter: my preferred system is Approval Voting, as it definitionally measures the greatest quantity of "consent of the governed", and game-theoretically rewards compromise and consensus. A person or policy that is extremely popular among 55% can potentially be outcompeted by one that is moderately popular among 75%.
I can dream. :)
Bhutan.
It's technically a Third-world country, but they seriously have their shit together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Political_reform_and_mo...
The old women wept when the King decreed democracy.
> Bhutan's political system has recently changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck transferred most of his administrative powers to the Council of Cabinet Ministers and allowed for impeachment of the King by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.[38]
They track not GDP but GNH: Gross National Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
Unfortunately, they're likely doomed:
> In 1999, the government lifted a ban on television and the Internet, making Bhutan one of the last countries to introduce television.
One great thing about our experiment is that you have a lot of liberty, included your constitutional right to travel. You can live in other cities and states which more closely align with your ideologies without ever needing to even think of violence of force.
Or, if you can't find a home here in any of our states or cities, you're welcome to seek a new home anywhere in the world.
That's the kind of liberty our experiments grants you.
—written from my iPhone
Also, I think Bhutan shifting their government to metrics based around well-being is a great example of orienting the state away from money and toward human needs.
And I don't know of a state that's been designed to fully meet the human need of autonomy.
I'd like to design and implement one, perhaps through exercising the inalienable right to found a nation, just as the founders of the USA did. Or did they found a nation only to strip people of the right to found their own nation?
If anyone can unilaterally decide not to be governed, then the government ceases to have any purpose. I think there's definitely a case to be made for allowing people to have more personal control, but what you're advocating is basically anarchy.
I was just rereading Abercrombie's A Little Hatred, and came across this, said by Sand dan Glokta (a notorious torturer) to a young associate:
> The goal of government, you see, is to load the unhappiness on to those least able to make you suffer for it.
Example: today, I was in court to convert traffic fines to community service. I was then informed community service must be performed for a 501c.3 to be recognized by the court.
Society and the government don't typically consider parenting or healing oneself physically/mentally/emotionally as something to be valued the same way as any paying job. Both take work and arebeneficial to society & the government, but people who help others accomplish those goals are currently paid/valued far more in capitalism.
So, I'm starting a 501c.3 to validate time spent parenting, supporting parents, healing and supporting healing for legal community service. The board will likely be stacked with anarchists (initially) and may be required to demonstrate a willingness to operate as such. In the face of by-laws requirements, this may be tricky to codify.
In any case, I see this as a way to starve the government of fines levied against people who fall into any of those categories (which can easily be met by anyone simply by hanging out with friends). Or at least I think it can apply to anyone. If I'm leaving anyone out, let's try to expand the mission to easily include them!
So we starve the state together through forming a nonprofit while meeting human needs.
It'd be nice if we could just say "This requirement doesn't meet my needs. Can we figure out another arrangement that doesn't require so much administrative overhead? I'm a full-time parent seeking to minimize the amount of time away from my child until I have broader solidaritous community support in my life."
I can write more on this, as this idea spawned out of already-in-place thoughts on peacefully revoking consent to be governed (for Lent and for All). But first I'm going to eat, clean the living room, and meditate on the nonprofit more while my partner and child nap.
I read your comment below, and I really like what you said about parenting and healing, by the way. I also think that learning to create things together without the permission of governments or corporations is something that we would all benefit from very much. I'm not sure it's necessary to throw off the shackles of government to make a lot of real, concrete improvements in the way we live.
In Lincoln's day, rail travel and the telegraph were the cutting edge of technology; news was beginning to commonly travel faster than it could be carried by couriers on horseback. (Of course, long-distance signaling systems existed for centuries before that, but had very low bandwidth and were at the mercy of weather conditions). Now we are in an era of ubiquitous instantaneous communications in developed countries (which I'll define here as any country with functioning electrical/cellphone infrastructure). One ramification of this is the use of mass networking services like Telegram, Whatsapp etc. as the organizing medium for political demonstrations/uprisings in numerous countries around the world.
18th-century social/political technology is no longer responsive to the tempo of a 21st century world. And while it would be a mistake to situate the mechanisms of the government in the fastest conceivable context (as evidenced by volatility in financial markets), being locked in to various years-long political cycles (particularly the 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 year cycles of the American political calendar) clearly comes with a cost of reduced flexibility as well as a benefit of increased stability. Like a tank falling into a ditch, once it passes a tipping point of instability there's no bringing it back.
No, it's not. It's not a well-designed one either. It is simply not a political science experiment.
> It provides no means to peacefully revoke consent to be governed
Nor could it without being replaced as a government with one that did not.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
It's common to hear things like "tu abuela nos entierra a todos" (Grandma will bury us all) to imply she's really healthy for her age. I never even considered the alternative and more sinister possible meaning.
It would be very inconvenient for a lot of people's agendas to not be able to portray the folks who use this slogan as bloodthirsty savages hell bent on destroying us.
Translation is not a 1:1 affair much of the time.
- They're dead to me
- They're killing it
- They're dead wrong
- They're dead in the water
Given that this phrase was used during the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979, and is often accompanied by flag burning, probably a significant part of the crowds chanting that slogan do actually want death to come to individual Americans.
That is one stupid inference- a complete non sequitur.
When they chanted death/down with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war did their actions just not coincide with their chants as they bombarded Iraq?
I’m not hitting you to be violent; rather, it’s a sign of affection.
Death threats are common in political speech of that kind.
Iranians were both protesting for and against US actions in recent days in US cities. Let’s try that in Iran if you think it’s the same.
What would you expect Iranians to say in the middle of the war? Death with CIA-sponsored chemical weapons but we're otherwise cool with Iraq?
But still, the point is it didn’t just mean “down with you, bah humbug!” as some people are trying to imply.
The US (or more specifically, boomers, who still dominate policy and politics to a large extent) has (have) never gotten over the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-90, when the Iranian revolution took American embassy staffers hostage for months on end. Conservatives still demonize Jimmy Carter over it, mostly forgetting the fact that Carter actually tried a military response which failed dismally due a lack of military preparedness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
You could see a vivid example of this over the weekend when President Trump tweet-threatened to strike 52 sites of national or cultural importance to Iran 'representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran'. In general, rational factors are an input to policy, but many political currents are emotionally driven, and humiliation is a particularly toxic emotion that Trump has historically harped on; whether that's a cynical populist strategy or a personal hangup is a matter of conjecture. Of course, this works both ways; you could argue that Iran's selection of Ahmadinejad and Rouhani were to a large extent driven by their perceptions of George Bush and Barack Obama public personae.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_ter...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponso...
Not sure why people ITT still trying to nitpick and stick with the supposition that the chant is violent and primitive.
\\See latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump & his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 130.
\\case;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this 146pg doc, last updated today:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ...
All members of the "Illuminati"; "....an underground organization of homosexuals and child rapists..." (from pg 26: Barack Obama with Jack Dorsey).
President Donald Trump:
Demands a fo$4billion dollar bribe here at 10:18am 4Jan2019:
3JanCh3_900-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77...
3JanCh2_900-1100-avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUmVygl_q0XVs8h2cWr8jZl-24f...
3JanCh4_1000-1100!mp3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZpP1pJbJakBgg-y-MWNozTxp3wJ...
President Trump rapes and kills twelve boys, including 5 boys in a "who can rape five boys to death the fastest" game:
14JanCh3_600.mp3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufPmglde9Mep0m6xYMJ9c4TWTjj...
14JanCh2_600-700.mp3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/136qLJdEn8eCs9tI4QtIxl4opW_L...
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
Accepts a $3 billion dollar bribe at 1033 am on the 17th of Jan 2019 to ensure Asian boys can get through the border at "Monterey" undocumented to be raped:
17JanCh3_949-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1C...
17JanCh4_1017-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZN...
Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 130.
\\case;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn up the volume. You will hear these people committing these crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage. Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens more links, including these, that can be found in this 146pg doc, last updated today:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sj9EN_pHmicKS6rFQlmk67knMdJ...
All members of the "Illuminati"; "....an underground organization of homosexuals and child rapists..." (from pg 26: Barack Obama with Jack Dorsey).
President Donald Trump:
Demands a fo$4billion dollar bribe here at 10:18am 4Jan2019:
3JanCh3_900-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77...
3JanCh2_900-1100-avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUmVygl_q0XVs8h2cWr8jZl-24f...
3JanCh4_1000-1100!mp3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZpP1pJbJakBgg-y-MWNozTxp3wJ...
President Trump rapes and kills twelve boys, including 5 boys in a "who can rape five boys to death the fastest" game:
14JanCh3_600.mp3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufPmglde9Mep0m6xYMJ9c4TWTjj...
14JanCh2_600-700.mp3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/136qLJdEn8eCs9tI4QtIxl4opW_L...
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
Accepts a $3 billion dollar bribe at 1033 am on the 17th of Jan 2019 to ensure Asian boys can get through the border at "Monterey" undocumented to be raped:
17JanCh3_949-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1C...
17JanCh4_1017-1100.avi
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZN...
Speaker Nancy Pelosi also "preps" boys with First Lady Melania Trump, defined as in she performs oral sex on the boys’ penis and anus, as a child rapist like Henry Porter would, while trying to remove fecal matter from the boy prior to handing them over to be raped and then subsequently mur...
+ Fortunately, with a new hard medical pillow I feel much better nowadays.
As a teenager, you don't grasp what you're saying. You're just part of the crowd. In an environment that there's almost no other forms of entertainment at reach; you feel powerful in these rallies. It's like being in a rock concert and singing the songs.
I imagine most people that show up in the rallies these days have nothing else to do. It's a recreational event for most.
Actually I think this is exactly what makes this culture most dangerous. There are big crowds of mostly low or unemployed people blindly following their leaders. And they enjoy it the same way that you enjoy a sport event or a concert.
I speak Farsi and 'death to America', well means death to America. I even didn't know about the historical reference mentioned in the post. But I doubt that the big majority of the individuals that are shouting death to something truly mean it.
I originally thought it was pretty dumb of Trump to tear up the nuclear deal, escalate tensions, and most recently basically try to start a war (by killing a high level government official).
But if "death to America" is literally being indoctrinated into their whole society, maybe war is inevitable, and better for it to start on our terms, when we have an advantage, instead of (say) wringing our hands and kicking the can down the road until they have nukes, like we did with North Korea. Maybe Trump's stance on this issue might not be so crazy?
Supporting war because "[it] is inevitable, and better for it to start on our terms, when we have an advantage" __is__ insane and is not a defensible position.
Older generations (even in some rural areas) have fond memories of Americanization of Iran in the 70s (which finally led to the Islamic revolution).
The problem that I see with Trump's approach is that it alienates these groups of people that had been pro-American before.
The country and the economy was thriving for a brief couple of years after the nuclear deal. People used their money to visit Gulf countries, east Asia and Europe. I think Internet speed almost doubled in that period.
But new sanctions made the economy collapse. And Muslim ban is a real thing if you are born in Iran. And it does not matter how pro-American you are.
Then now we ended up in a situation that even ordinary, middle class Iranians that could've been in American camp, are feeling under attack by a bully. For them everything that the government has been preaching about the great Satan is coming true.
Maybe it's time to realise it had elements of truth from the beginning.
How can Iranians still support that government?
Sanctions are probably the wrong approach - they tend to hurt ordinary people far more than the government - but if I were Iranian, living under a regime that's willing to shoot me in the back, I'd hope for regime change.
1: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-says-iran-may-have-ki...
2: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/iran-death-to...
You're not respectful, as you're insulting 80 million people by saying they all want to murder you and other hundreds of million.
You're not being intelligent either, because you're wilfully ignoring the fact that literal translations from one language to another are incorrect. Even Google translate is in fact smarter than you are: just paste مرگ بر آمریکا into it and see what it prints out.
> Further, I don't think the killing of Soliemani was intended to signal we intend to change the regime. I think rather it was asking a question ... It's time for Iran's leadership to give this era of zero sum foreign policy a proper burial.
Wait, wait. The Iran had an agreement with the rest of the world, all of it. It agreed to a very strict regime of inspections and halting its nuclear program in exchange for an increased freedom to commerce with the rest of the world. This was a win-win for all, the opposite of a zero sum game. Trump has reneged the agreement, against the opinions of everybody else, and imposed a complete economic embargo on Iran through sanctions on anybody who does commerce with it. It is chocking the entire country. This is a zero sum game.
What the US is doing is strangling a country of 80 million- a bloodless death but death nonetheless. And if the dying country kicks and struggles, you say "enough with the zero sum game"? Really?
This is pretty much how reciting the Pledge of Allegiance felt when I was growing up. We'd stand and recite it at the start of every day of elementary school, but no one really paid too much attention to the words themselves and their meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
As a side note, its fun to see something from Language Log on HN.
Just open Google translate and paste in it: مرگ بر آمریکا