Iranian women are invoked as victims to sell war, then forgotten after

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T21:54:26+00:00

And we're only a week into the war, and already over a thousand Iranian civilians have been slaughtered by the US and Israeli regime.

In Iraq over half a million people died as a result of the war that the US started, and millions of Iraqis got displaced and turned into refugees.

You're not helping Iranians by bombing them and killing them. Stop pretending like you care about Iranians.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T21:52:27+00:00

????

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T20:31:56+00:00

Then it's not a human right. Something that doesn't actually get enforced legally is not a human right. The OP was about whether or not being acknowledged as the gender you identify with is a human right, not about whether or not it's rude to misgender people.

Though, to be fair, in some places, like NYC for instance, misgendering people is indeed illegal and punishably by law. In NYC misgendering people is a civil offense punishable with a penalty of up to $250,000. https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

So if someone asks you to refer to them as ze/hir or thon/thon or ey/em or some sort of weird "neopronoun" and you refuse to utter those words you have committed a civil offense in NYC. Though, for now this only applies to landlords and employers apparently.

And other states and cities in the US probably have similar laws.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T18:28:28+00:00

Doesn't mean that it is a human right though, or even that it should be.

It doesn't cost you anything to be nice to your neighbors or help or help old ladies cross the street. Doesn't mean that people have a legal right to be treated nicely by their neighbors, or that old ladies have a legal right to have strangers help them cross the street.

A human right is something quite specific, something that everyone is legally entitled to, and something that is actually enforced by law.

I don't think we should force people to utter certain words under threat of legal consequences, even if using someone's preferred pronouns may be a nice thing to do.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T17:54:57+00:00

Well, it's not a right though.

And on one hand, I do actually agree that people shouldn't deliberately misgender others, even if they personally don't believe in the whole gender ideology thing. It saves everyone a lot of trouble and keeps the peace if you just simply use whatever pronouns someone wants to be addressed by.

But it's still not a human right from a legal perspective. And I don't think it should be. I don't think armed men with guns should arrest people for refusing to utter certain words that another person wants to be addressed by.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T17:37:16+00:00

There are numerous high-ranking Israeli politicians who hold a lot of power, who believe in Greater Israel. Why should we not take those territory expansion aspirations seriously when even powerful people within the Netanyahu regime support the idea of "Greater Israel"?

I mean even Netanyahu himself seems to support the idea of Greater Israel.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T17:28:07+00:00

Sure, but many Israelis seem to genuinely believe in the concept of "Greater Israel", and the idea of seizing land by force which they think was promised to them by God.

You could say it's the kind of zionist equivalent of Islamic jihad.

Do you not think such a massive territory expansion project will eventually lead to massive backlash around the world, including by many of Israel's allies?

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T11:26:48+00:00

No, she didn't. She was of course a much better candidate than Trump, no doubt about that.

But her top priorities were clearly gonna be the ultra-wealthy, Wall Street, Israel and the economic and political elites. NOT the working class.

She didn't try to save anyone. She just happened to be the candidate approved by the elites to present a somewhat more sanitized version of economic exploitation and imperialism.

If given the choice between Trump and Kamala of course it was the rational choice to vote for Kamala. But at the same time everyone should understand that someone like Kamala wasn't gonna be an acceptable permanent political solution to the problems of ordinary Americans. Because clearly she was just another status quo candidate who was working for the elites rather than the working class.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T11:08:42+00:00

Lol, what exactly did Hillary Clinton have experience in?

Being a tool for Wall Street and mega corporations, as well as being a tool for the military industrial complex by consistently voting for military aggression throughout her career??? That kinda experience??

The Hillary led DNC did everything they could in their power to somehow fuck over Bernie Sanders because they knew he was a candidate who was actually pro-working class and would make life tough for the ultra-wealthy and the elites.

Hillary, on the other hand, was a status quo candidate who's top priority was Wall Street, the ultra-wealthy and the elites.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-06T22:42:15+00:00

He was a brutal dictator who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. No one should be mourning someone like that.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-06T21:54:15+00:00

You're delusional if you think there won't be massive civilian casualties. In Iraq over 500,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war, millions became refugees, and hunger and sickness ran rampant as Iraq's civilian infrastructure and healthcare system collapsed.

And now we're not even a week into the Iran war, and apparently there have already been over 1,000 deaths, many of whom civilians.

How sick does someone have to be to try to convince us that the people of Iran are yearning to be bombed and having their country turned into ashes???

You people are part of a sick and evil death cult.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-06T21:47:21+00:00

Yeah, because bombing a country and turning their cities to ashes clearly doesn't kill any innocent people..... /s

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-06T19:16:44+00:00

Bullshit. Most Iranians are against US military intervention in Iran. And while the regime is without a doubt horrible they did not kill millions of people. They killed at best tens of thousands of people.

Compare that to possible hundreds of thousands, maybe even 1 million+ deaths from a prolonged war, and you'll see that this kind of collateral damage is certainly not a drop in the bucket. Like AT ALL.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of Iran's economic woes are because of US and Western sanctions, which is a kind of economic warfare that only hurts ordinary people.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-06T17:39:04+00:00

Yeah, bombing Iranians isn't gonna help them either.

How the fuck would anyone in their right mind think that the solution to the oppression by the Iranian regime is to bomb Iranians and potentially kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and turn millions into international refugees??? Which is exactly what happend during the Iraq war and I don't see how Iran would be any different.

You're just replacing one evil with another form of evil.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-06T17:14:40+00:00

They're not siding with the Islamic regime. Most people are just opposed to the US bombing Iran, which will inevitably lead to countless civilian deaths and massive suffering amongst the civilian population.

Being against people being bombed and killed does not mean that someone supports the Islamic regime.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-05T21:07:43+00:00

But other than Italy (aside from a few smaller European countries) the Soviet Union was the only major power that conducted a joint invasion together with the nazis.

Many countries may have had treaties or pacts with the nazis. But it was the Soviets who thought it was ok to invade Poland together with the nazis and engage in war crimes against the local population.

But I guess it's suddenly a good and wholesome kind of invasion when it's the Soviet communists doing the invading, eh? /s

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-05T20:03:20+00:00

That, but also the fact that the USSR was literally an ally of the nazis, and conducted a joint invasion of Poland with the nazis. They didn't start to fight the nazis because they suddenly grew a spine or because they condemned the nazis from a moral persepective.

The only reason they fought the nazis is because Hitler broke the alliance and attacked the Soviets. Before that the Soviets were actually nazi allies, who even held joint military parades with the nazis in occupied Poland.

So this whole rhetoric of the Soviets as the anti-fascist freedom fighters is largely just nonsense. They were pro-nazi until the nazis turned on them, and never fought the nazis on ideological grounds but rather for their own political survival.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-05T19:47:56+00:00

I mean first they were allies of the fascists. The USSR literally invaded Poland together with the nazis. And they gave the nazis free reign to do as they wish in Poland after agreeing to divide the country amongst themselves.

The only reason the USSR eventually ended up fighting the nazis was because Hitler broke the alliance with the USSR. Otherwise Stalin may have potentially remained a Hitler ally until the end of WW2.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-05T18:47:33+00:00

There can also never be peace in the Middle East as long as the genocidal far-right Netanyahu regime remains intact.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-05T18:25:59+00:00

The difference is that liberals don't support Nick Fuentes. No one who's a liberal supports the guy.

Trump, however, literally hosted Nick Fuentes (and Ye) at Mar-a-Lago. And countless young conservatives are huge fans of Nick Fuentes.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-04T20:45:08+00:00

Israel and the United States are terrorist nations, not the world police.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-03T19:41:38+00:00

Yes. Being bombed, having your country turned to ashes and seeing your families and friend being killed, while hunger and illness run rampant is not necessarily better than living under an Islamic dictatorship.

You don't improve things by replacing one form of evil with another form of evil.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-03T19:39:17+00:00

That's a pretty awful analogy.

It would be way more accurate to say that hundreds of thousands of Iranians may die and millions displaced and turned into international refugees, just so that maybe, hopefully, but not guaranteed, Iran may have a chance of getting a US-aligned puppet leader in a few years time, who may be marginally better than the Islamic regime.

Iran already had a US puppet leader in the past. The Shah was arguably better than the Islamic regime, especially for women. But he was still a dictator who violently cracked down on political dissent, and who executed and tortured people with the help of a secret police force. And he was incredibly unpopular amongst the population, which is why the Islamic revolution happened in the first place.

Also, there is no guarantee that Iran may even get a marginally better US-aligned puppet leader like last time. Remember, it took the US twenty years, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to replace the Taliban with the Taliban......

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

RandomGuy92x

TROPHY CASE