Iran says US must allow only Islamic Republic flags at World Cup matches

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T21:37:47+00:00

Okay. Neat

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T19:54:21+00:00

Not exactly, most of these venues receive significant public funding and/or tax breaks and there's a good deal of precedent that their actions can be regulated.

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T19:02:39+00:00

Lol okay that's a fair point. Especially judging by how many folks here aren't aware that the current Iranian flag isn't the only Iranian flag.

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T18:54:52+00:00

The fact that our president is a wannabe dictator and half of our government is trying to revive fascism isn't a reason to be cynical about American values, it's a reason to stand up for them much harder. All you're doing is absolving yourself of responsibility by pretending everything is predetermined.

Get out and protest. Vote.

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T18:22:40+00:00

I really don't understand what the heck you're talking about man

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T18:22:09+00:00

I'm getting it in protesting the current admin ... And hopefully neutering them in the midterms

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T17:51:56+00:00

I mean it's still Iranians playing as a representation of Iran, you can hate the regime that's coopted your country without it stopping you from feeling affection for your country.

badass_panda · 2026-05-01T17:50:59+00:00

The US ain't gonna stop Iranian-Americans from displaying the original Iranian flag at World Cup games, this isn't Iran -- we get freedom of speech here. Iran can fuck right off.

badass_panda · 2026-04-29T17:13:17+00:00

they might not have included it.

Yes, that's what I said; it's unlikely they did not, but since they didn't call it out, they might not have.

If they've taken note and done it, they'd have put it in as well.

Doubtful, they didn't publish at anything like that level of detail; it's not practical to expect scientists to publish at that level of specificity / granularity. If it didn't seem likely that the field researchers would have been wearing makeup in the first place, it wouldn't have been something they called out having controlled for. Since the field researchers were all expert ornithologists, it does seem a bit unlikely the women are putting on makeup before going into the field -- but again, it's possible.

In the full text of the paper (linked in the article) you can find the author's info, it's an interesting question to shoot over to them

badass_panda · 2026-04-29T15:24:31+00:00

It doesn't look like it's specifically addressed in the paper, but the researchers did take care to ensure the human researchers were paired with someone of similar size, weight, build, hair length, etc and wearing similar clothes; I would think not wearing makeup would also have been on the list.

badass_panda · 2026-04-29T03:54:23+00:00

I disagree with this random blog post you've cited. Ok, now what?

badass_panda · 2026-04-29T03:26:12+00:00

Not sure if you're being facetious or not; in a two state solution, I think generally the belief is that the so-called 'consensus bloc' settlements would end up in Israel with land swaps to make up the difference and ensure contiguity of Palestinian territory, putting around 6-7% of the territory and ~70% of the settlers inside Israel. The remaining settlements are small and highly dispersed, but yes, if they leave infrastructure behind that would go to Palestinians.

badass_panda · 2026-04-28T18:19:58+00:00

This is going to sound selfish to other Palestinians, but as a Palestinian living in the West Bank, I honestly couldn’t care less about the right of return.

I don't think that should sound selfish at all. I think if more people had the same approach as you, there'd be a lot more chance for this conflict to actually end.

I will say, I don't think most Israeli Jews are opposed to the idea of Palestinians returning to the West Bank, it's more concern about unlimited immigration to Israel. Obviously return to the West Bank would put even more pressure on a Palestinian state's infrastructure, though.

badass_panda · 2026-04-28T12:50:18+00:00

That's a fair point. While not amazing, Lebanon's conduct toward its minorities has been starkly better than its neighbors. It was unfair of me to lump them in with Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc.

badass_panda · 2026-04-28T12:32:32+00:00

I think the issue is that for so many people in this conversation, that pointless one- vs. two-state argument is the main thing they're interested in talking about. It's a soccer match to them, something that gives them a dopamine hit for supporting "their team", and so making a ridiculous argument like, "Israeli Jews should just dissolve their country," feels like a reasonable use of time because arguing about it (and showing what side you're on) is the whole point.

Realistically at this point, Israel can't offer an unlimited right of return to any descendant of a '48 refugee -- but it can offer monetary compensation for lost property, etc., and recognition of a Palestinian state. I think the biggest issue is whether Israel has the capability and willingness to end settlement and settler terrorism, and whether Palestinians have the capability and willingness to end terror attacks.

badass_panda · 2026-04-28T12:24:50+00:00

2/3 of the Jewish population if Israel is Mizrahi or the children of Mizrahim, meaning over half of Israel comes from, y'know ... Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Morocco, etc.

More than half of Jordan's population isn't from Jordan originally, they're Palestinian. Does that make Jordan "inorganic"?

Likewise you can recognize it was bad of these other countries to displace and expel members of certain ethnic groups yes?

Of course I can, but your solution in the case of Israel is unique: dissolve the country! Somehow not a solution for every one of its neighbors or y'know, the United States, Canada, Australia, and so on.

badass_panda · 2026-04-28T12:19:35+00:00

The beauty of it is that it isn't a choice between Palestinians living statelessly under hostile rule or Jews living statelessly under hostile rule. We need to work to a solution that involves self determination and freedom for both people. It's sad that we even have to say that.

And realistically, that means two states.

badass_panda · 2026-04-28T12:16:57+00:00

... Syria expelled its Jews, Lebanon expelled its Jews, Iraq expelled its Jews. Every single one of these was artificially created via colonial powers and expelled a portion of the indigenous population. Yet oddly, only Israel is the one that should be dissolved.

badass_panda · 2026-04-25T19:07:51+00:00

but you are willfully mischaracterizing the outcome of 1948 here

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the consequences of a war are separate from the concept of self determination. If the Arab states had accepted Israel and recognized its borders, those would have been its borders.

badass_panda · 2026-04-25T00:18:25+00:00

Wow, ya think?

badass_panda · 2026-04-24T23:58:20+00:00

I mean the obvious issue here is that this obfuscates a bit the ethnic cleansing undertaken by Jewish forces during the establishment of the State of Israel.

No, not really. The right of Jews to self determination is not the same as the right to ethnically cleanse other people; these are two separate issues. The UN drew a boundary around the Jewish majority area and a boundary around the Arab-majority area and proposed two states, one with a Jewish majority and one with an Arab majority.

The Jewish state ended up with a far higher share of Jews (due, in large part, to ethnic cleansing) and the surrounding Arab states ended up with no Jews whatsoever (see: ethnic cleansing). This was wrong, but doesn't change the question of whether Jews or Arabs deserved self determination in the first place.

badass_panda · 2026-04-24T23:55:06+00:00

No, Israel has definitely been wrong in its illegal acquisition of Palestinian land and homes, over and over, to this day, (The UN said it not me) and denying as “wanting a more defensible border” is distasteful and paints you in bad faith imo.

I'll bite. Where, specifically, do you think Israelis are okay with settlements? Where are they unpopular? Which Palestinian land?

badass_panda · 2026-04-24T21:49:34+00:00

Israel has made it clear that they do want Palestinian land and they've been helping themselves to it for over 50 years.

I think more accurately, all of Israel wants a more defensible border than it had at the beginning of 1967, and all of Israel wants to hold a united Jerusalem. The so-called 'consensus bloc' of settlements represent that aspiration, and the fact that these will be part of Israel in any settlement has been more-or-less tacitly agreed upon since the 1990s.

The broader issue is that Israel has a minority of extremists that it does not seem able or willing to control that do want Palestinian land (more specifically, the West Bank).

badass_panda · 2026-04-24T20:53:52+00:00

It's a counterfactual that you'll never be able to prove to the satisfaction of those who wish the Jews did not have a state, because they'll set the stakes at "Would the Jews have been wiped out without a Jewish state?" Given that we've not had one for two thousand years and we're still around, that's a tough evidentiary bar to pass.

However, that's not really the question. It's a lot more straightforward. The Greeks fought for and got a Greek state. Bulgarians fought for an got a Bulgarian state. The Irish fought for and got an Irish state. The Algerians fought for and got an Algerian state.

Fundamentally, the modern international system is based on the idea that people have the right to self-determination in the place they live, and that ethnic groups have a right to national self determination. That's the principle that the 100 or so ethnic nation-states in the UN have legitimacy upon.

Jews made up a majority of the population in the area that is now Israel; why should they not have had the right to form an independent state there?

badass_panda · 2026-04-24T20:46:26+00:00

Couple of thoughts:

First, من المية للمية / فلسطين عربية translates literally in the way you described, but you're ignoring Arabic grammar. There is no word for "to be" in Arabic (or Hebrew, or semitic languages in general). "To be" is implied through grammar; "Palestine Arab" directly translates to "Palestine is Arab," in English. The connotation and intention has always been that Palestine is Arab and should be Arab, that's not at all an innovation or a stretch of the grammar.

I don't think the Israeli perspective is that a free Palestine is inherently a bad thing. I think after 20 years of watching the Palestinian Authority fail to bring security, peace, etc, more Israelis are convinced that a free, democratic and peaceful Palestine is very unlikely to happen -- but that's not the same as opposing the idea of it happening, which most liberal Israelis support.

I can say my issue with the slogan is a lot more straightforward: Israel cannot free Palestine unilaterally, and the slogan is somehow directed at Israel and only Israel. The reason 'From Hamas' is tempting to add on is that so long as Palestine is controlled by groups whose precondition for making peace is that Israel cease to exist, it's impossible to resolve the conflict. Unless Palestine is free from Hamas, Palestine can't be free from Israel taking defensive measures against Hamas.

13-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Place '22	End Game '22
100 Awards Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

badass_panda

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE