Khamenei Lover

Absolutely has the hots for the guy

08-Jul-2010
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Ghormeh SabziCommentsDate
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day
5
Dec 02, 2012
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day
2
Dec 01, 2012
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day
2
Nov 30, 2012
more from Ghormeh Sabzi
 
No Fear

Rosie,

by No Fear on

Can't remember. sorry.


Rosie.

Could you give me...

by Rosie. on

the link to this discusson?:

The refrence which i made in regards to " circling" was with the issue of " rights" and " freedoms" and whether they hold priorities over " democracy" itself. I had a long debate with vpk awhile ago about this and some other posters


No Fear

Declaration of Human Rights is just a Guideline.

by No Fear on

I personally have no problem with the declaration of human rights adopted by UN. As you have rightly mentioned, this is an ideal.

I like to look at this declaration as a guideline than a document that has to be enforced in our society as divine law. By this i mean, we have to grasp and understand these concepts as a nation.

How far as a nation are we willing to go to adopt this declaration as our laws? Are we willing to lose a part of Iran to the kurds or turks or balouchs because their rights must be protected under DHR ( Declaration of human rights )? Are we willing as a nation to put human laws above Gods laws?  There are many many implications when implementing DHR in our society.

But there is ONLY one way to findout if our nation is ready.

These articles of DHR must be put to a vote. If the majority of Iranians accept them, then by all means, put them in to effect right away.

Even in the modern era which you speak of, the majority has decided when to follow DHR and when to decline it. This is specially evident when nations try to protect their identities from a foreign concept. It could be Iran resisting becoming westernized, or France obstructing religous freedoms . Belgium and Switzerland are also guilty of violation of article 18 of the DHR.  Every time an article of DHR is revoked or ignored, it was the Majority who agreed to do it.

The majority might decide to ignore these laws due to national security, or cultural boundaries or religious considerations. How do you want to enforce it then? With military force? See my point?

Those who are crying out loud for the implementation of DHR in our society are Idealists at best. I will support their cause because its a worthy cause and it will help to balance one extreme with another. But to call it absolute law, you are setting yourself up for grand failure.

As you see, i have provided reasons to support the priority of public opinion ( Majority ) over any human laws. let me extend this to the religious laws as well and say only the majority has the power to change or discard religious laws as well.

 


Rosie.

Let me start here,

by Rosie. on

before getting to the specific rights/majority horse/cart, chicken/egg issue of implementation you bring up. I want to reply to this section of your post titled 'Rosie, you have my attention now':

You wrote:

If you are refering to defining "rights" and "freedoms" that are above the majority rules and should be respected under any condition, then yes, I am against adopting western defined rights for Iran. I tried to open this discussion with a few posters here but it seems the debate circles around. I asked a few posters based on what criterias should these rights and freedoms be defined? should we consider our culture, religion, history, what? 

The danger of introducing these rights above the majority rules, is that now you have opened the flood gates for every different faction to introduce its own rights into the picture. I am skeptical

 

Yes, I am referring to defining 'rights and freedoms'. They are no longer specifically Western in modern times. They are like fruits, the fruits of human evolutiion, which exist as an ideal and which globally we as a species are striving to realize. These fruits, these ideas/ideals, come from branches and leaves which have spread worldwide. Which in turn come from a trunk, then roots, then seeds, which, yes, may have largely originated in the West but they are (should be) everyone's now. (Of course they haven't up to now been everyone's in the West yet. Far from...but that is not the point).

The branching out came in tandem with the development of the global village, its technology/communications nexus. And in also in response to the massive unprecedented horrors produced by this technology throughout the 20th century. The fruit was this document. We just haven't all gotten to eat it yet but it seems to me to be pretty damn good fruit:

//www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Implementation is a closely related but separate issue. But as regards the question of what is to be implemented: What is wrong with what is delineated in this document? What would be culture-bound or culturally skewed in it? Where is this danger you speak of? What are these floodgates? What is there to be skeptical about here? I am not talking about short term in terms of implementation, of the pragmatic obstacles posed, but as an ideal, the ideal.

Where is the problem with this being the blueprint for the 21st century, which we as one world, one species at this point of our evolution should aspire to? What in this document would be objectionable, inimical to, Iran's 'culture, religion, history'? Or  anyplace else's?

In other words, what is specifically Western about these rights now, in 2010?

 


Rosie.

No Fear, you wrote:

by Rosie. on

The reference which i made in regards to " circling" was with the issue of " rights" and " freedoms" and whether they hold priorities over " democracy" itself. I had a long debate with vpk awhile ago about this and some other posters.

Okay, fine, I will get to this issue of circling in a bit. It is very important.

However, before I do ,I am going to reiterate that one can't not address someone's main point (and especially not even acknowledge it), and expect to have a very fruitful discussion. In your last post you wrote, initially quoting me::

"My point was what I perceived could be deep emotional/psychological reasons why you would maintain that particular ('non-Revolutionary') stance. "

You commented:

Are you a shrink? ( no offense intended, its just you are diverting from a logical debate and trying to find emotional reasons to my stance)

That's the whole point! The point is that that was my main point in my post called 'Funny, Amir (No Fear)'. A point which you did not even acknowledge and yet which Amir addressed directly and fully. And well, No Fear, maybe I am a shrink and maybe I'm not. And maybe I have every right to 'try to find emotional reasons for your or anyone's political stance' in 'a logical debate'. And maybe I don't. Ethically, intellectually, out of politeness, whatever. And maybe it's relevant, maybe it's not. Maybe it deflects, maybe it doesn't. And you could've said any or all of those things to me, politely or offensively. You could have even slung mud in my face about it. But however you might've done it...

at least you would've been addressing my main point.

Instead, you didn't even acknowledge it until I prodded you in my next post.

Unfruitful.

***

Having said that, let's leave it for now and I shall turn instead to the 'logical' 'debate' about democracy and look carefully at this phenomenom of circling which you describe, without making any mention whatsoever about psychology--individual or collective, yours or anyone else's--and post you a comment on it shortly.


No Fear

Rosie,

by No Fear on

The refrence which i made in regards to " circling" was with the issue of " rights" and " freedoms" and whether they hold priorities over " democracy" itself. I had a long debate with vpk awhile ago about this and some other posters.

While i advocate " Democracy" first , " rights and freedoms" second, others tried to argue the other way around. I have questioned their approaches since a democratic process is needed to put those " rights" in place to begin with. While they repeat themselves that IR is not democratic to be able to do so. I have countered it by saying we still have the majority of the eligible voters going to the polling stations. They are saying this majority votes should not be counted since minority rights are not respected. I am saying that i wish the minority position improves in Iran, but till then, a majority win is still a majority win and the minorities could not affect the outcome of the voting process and the results which followed. They are saying that IRI is not democratic again.

Do you see my point?

I told you in the previuos post that my case is based on numbers which is the most important characteristic of a democratic process.

But my opponents are arguing that the results of a majority vote can not be legitimate since proper rights and freedom does not exist in Iran.

Whats bizarre in their logic is that they ignore the very fact that a democratic process based on majority votes is needed to put those rights in place.

More bizarre in their approaches, is that they suggest violently overthrowing IR and introducing these rights and freedoms as laws.

Come on now.... even you can see the fallacy of such arguement.

Anyway...

you said:

"My point was what I perceived could be deep emotional/psychological reasons why you would maintain that particular ('non-Revolutionary') stance. "

Are you a shrink? ( no offense intended, its just you are diverting from a logical debate and trying to find emotional reasons to my stance)

And if others do it too, well, sorry, but the onus is upon you to be the first to stop the deflecting that leads to the 'circling'.

My reasons are listed above and read the posts to see who has offered more reasons and flexibility in their stance. I have looked at this issue and argued about it from different angles, not like a parrot who keeps repeating IR is undemocratic. But can not explain the %85 voters turnout in the last election. Unless they claim it a lie, without any substantial proof.

Do you see that my main point in my paragraph from which you quoted was something quite different from what you actually addressed?

Excuse my ignorance, but i don't follow you here. I don't know what quote you are talking about.

 

 


Rosie.

No Fear, I don't want to...

by Rosie. on

debate the issue of revolution not being the solution right now, because there is something much more fundamental that needs to be addressed. In any case, just to let you know, I am very familiar with your views on this, because you already wrote one blog a few weeks ago which I read and which brought up these ideas:

//iranian.com/main/blog/no-fear/intellectual-left-dilemma-and-right-solution

You have also expressed these ideas on other occasions. 

***

No, this is not going to turn into a 'what he said/what she said kind of a debate'. I am going to do my best to ensure that it is a 'what you say/what I say kind of a debate'. As in what we both actually said as opposed to what we perceive the other to have said based on preconceptions we bring to reading the posts. If that can't happen, there is no point in discussing anything, is there?

You see, No Fear, you said below that when you have tried to discuss the issue of democracy in IRI here, people have circled. However, many times other people have told you that you are the one who goes in circles, and/or doesn't understand (doesn't want to understand???) certain things they are saying that should be quite clear. On this thread there are actually two instances where I saw this failing to understand of yours which puts the circling in motion. I am only going to talk about the second time now, the one in my last post below, from which you quoted.

No Fear, I didn't say anything whatsoever about your having a 'Revolutionary' stance.

in terms of violence, etc. Actually, to a thinking person it is pretty self-evident that a person who 'supports' (so t say) the current regime isn't revolutionary, inasmuch as they don't want to overthrow it. It is a given. My point was what I perceived could be deep emotional/psychological reasons why you would maintain that particular ('non-Revolutionary') stance.

Again, my point was not about what stance you hold but why you might hold it.  Why you are 'pro-IRI'. (Or perhaps better said, why you defend IRI).

I'm not asking you to address that point now--in fact it would probably be better to put that on hold. I'm just asking if you can see that I was rowing up a river and you took your boat off to a tributary. Same water, different direction. Amir understood my main point completely, and he addressed it fully and directly. Yet you didn't. 

***

No Fear, I believe you come here in good faith to engage with people (and I also know some of them want to jump down my throat as they read these very words...). But how can you engage when you so often deflect? I don't believe it is intentional, but I'm sorry, No Fear, you do do it.

And if others do it too, well, sorry, but the onus is upon you to be the first to stop the deflecting that leads to the 'circling'. If you don't do it, no one else will budge. You knew when you came here that it would be up to you to break down the barriers. And that it wasn't going to be easy. So, once again, my question to you is a simple one:

Do you see that my main point in my paragraph from which you quoted was something quite different from what you actually addressed?

***

p.s. And if I sound pedantic to you or to anyone reading this, sorry but so be it.

 


comrade

Tears of mama revolution

by comrade on

I don't accuse her of being fake, staged, threatened, paid, or drugged. I only question the motive behind this cheap publicity stunt by the state-run propaganda apparatus.

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp


No Fear

Rosie,

by No Fear on

because you said;

"because he truly wants (needs) to have faith in that Revolution"

Thats why i felt to express my anti revolutionary stance. However, i sincerely hope that this debate doesn't turn in to what he said / what she said kind of a debate. I am thinking of writting a blog titled " Revolution is not the Solution". I will expand more in that blog. If you have a question in this regard, please keep it for the blog so i can have all ideas in one place for references.


Rosie.

Okay, No Fear,

by Rosie. on

if you don't mind, let's do this point by point so we don't get spread too thin. I'd like to start by arriving at some clarification of this part:

You quoted me 

, that it mattered for something for his country"

(This is the full paragraph from which you excerpted your quote:

Oh, we could go on and on. But to talk about intellectual dishonesty, Amir, is only part of the picture. What about emotional dishonesty? I believe (I like to give benefit of the doubt.) that No Fear may rationalize these things because he truly wants (needs) to have faith in that Revolution, that it mattered for something for his country.)

You replied to me:

I am against revolutions. I hope that i can do my part to bring our government and people closer together. I never encourage any violence against people or government. I despise violence against our nation, be it government or people.

It seems as though you think there was something in what I said to/about you in that quote that led you to conclude that you are 'for' revlolutions. Is it true that you interpreted it this way, and if so, what was it that led you to think that I had said or implied that?

 


Rosie.

Hi, No Fear

by Rosie. on

and Amir (and the others who are following this discussion, which I see a number of people are doing). I am in a position right now where I won't be able to continue until Monday so please be patient and have a good weekend. Take care. Rosie.


AMIR1973

Rosie, you're welcome

by AMIR1973 on

It's been fruitful. Talk to you soon.


Rosie.

tbanks, no fear.

by Rosie. on

i'll have to answer you tomorrow (friday). hope you don't mind.

 

and thanks a whole lot, amir. really. it was nice.

i hope you had a good sleep.

rosie


No Fear

Rosie, you have my attention now.

by No Fear on

you said;

"Encarta include free and equal representation of ALL citizens Once you don't allow any representation of religious minorities such as the Bahai, there is no democracy"

I am building my case based on numbers ( The most important factor in a democracy ). If %85 of the eligible Iranian voters ( Over 40 million votes ) participate in an election while few hundred thousands Bahaie are left out, it points to an unfair treatment of a minority in Iran. But their votes are not sufficient enough to change the outcome of the election. I do believe in due time more representation of Iranians are needed in our politics, but for now, i can live with a system that brings %85 of the voters to the polling stations.

"Now, you (No Fear) can say these are Western definitions but this is a western concept, so if you don't accept fhs western definition, you're talking about a different phenomenon "

If you are refering to defining "rights" and "freedoms" that are above the majority rules and should be respected under any condition, then yes, I am against adopting western defined rights for Iran. I tried to open this discussion with a few posters here but it seems the debate circles around. I asked a few posters based on what criterias should these rights and freedoms be defined? should we consider our culture, religion, history, what? 

The danger of introducing these rights above the majority rules, is that now you have opened the flood gates for every different faction to introduce its own rights into the picture. I am skeptical, but open for discussion and willing to learn on this debate.

"And then of course, we can go back in time. Did the people really vote for Sharia? Velayate Faghi? With areh or neh? Jamshid uses the term 'defrauded'. Were they defrauded? "

Well, if you call it  "defrauded", you might as well call the millions who voted for it stupid as well. I never look at my people that way. I believe in the majority regardless if they are right or wrong. On the election i must say the question was very clear. Vote yes or no for Islamic republic of Iran. The Islamic word was there , wasn't it? People weren't blind, you know.

"....(needs) to have faith in that Revolution, that it mattered for something for his country"

I am against revolutions. I hope that i can do my part to bring our government and people closer together. I never encourage any violence against people or government. I despise violence against our nation, be it government or people.

"And in practically the next breath, next post, tell me you read my post to Fooladi about Hoder without feeling the pain of it all. And the immense contradiction. No Fear, I don't understand you. Do you understand yourself?"

Sorry, i'm clueless here. What are you talking about? This must be a misunderstanding.

Sincerely,

 

 


Rosie.

Amir,

by Rosie. on

Part I.

What is called intellectual dishonesty can also at times be a defense mechanism against facing a truth subconsciously perceived as unbearably painful.:

I think you raise a good point.

Well, good. :o)

Part II .  

I'm not trying to achieve scientific precision with my epithets. To my mind, I've been rather selective in whom I have labelled a Groupie, etc.

Look, I never really said those terms were bad. Kind of more like tedious. But hey, if you like ithem so much, go for it. 

For example, I've never called Mammad such (even though I know he has a number of detractors on this site).

Interesting you bring up Mammad.  Yes, he has his detractors but he also has his fans in surprising corners. Jamshid for one has expressed a lot of respect for him. Then there was Irani Irani. He was only here for about a month and then he got deleted recently.  But we had a siimilar discussion on my You Are Not Iranian thread about the 'apologist' so-called 'camp'. I named five possible ones to get him to be concrete He also exempted Mammad. He said the reason was he really decried the attrocities of IRI. (Getting back to NP..)

Actually he'd been having a fantastic discusson with Mammad. But he could also be abusive and some of his posts had been deleted and he said he just didn't understand why. (Sound familiar? See downstairs...) I was trying to explain based on what I'd seen but then his whole account got deleted. This seemed to me such a shame.

But that's what happens when people in general don't think about being principled onsite.  Things get out of control here and then so does the axe Sometimes it just falls where it may. (IMHO, No offense, Dear The Moderator).

 but facts would suggest that Islamism is a much bigger problem for Iranians in this day and time than Zionism is.

Well, yeeah, not for Iranians. lol  And probably not for Israelis. But for Palestinians...ah forget it. 'Beautiful Gaza'--that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...

I think I'm just about spent. What about you?


AMIR1973

Rosie, Part 2

by AMIR1973 on

In talking about the 'agent' thing, you have to factor in the paranoia element.

Yes, I have seen this issue raised--by "both" sides (e.g. accusations that someone is with "AIPAC"). I can only speak for myself and say that I've never accused someone of being "an agent" of anybody. Even when I've had my suspicions, I haven't made that accusation.

Would you hire Sargord? I wouldn't.  Too vague. IMF? Too hateful. Only convinces people of the opposite.  

I've said it myself before (mostly in jest) that such people are the "worst propagandists money could buy". Now, I do NOT know for a fact that these people work for some organ or affiliate of the IRI (and as I said before, I said it basically as a joke), but I agree with you that these folks hardly do a good job telling the IRI's side of things. 

Oh, and btw, cheerleader and groupie aren't specific definable political epithets. Just saying.

Fair enough, but I'm not trying to achieve scientific precision with my epithets. To my mind, I've been rather selective in whom I have labelled a Groupie, etc. For example, I've never called Mammad such (even though I know he has a number of detractors on this site). Again, to my mind, I've labelled a handful of folks whose advocacy on behalf of the IRI (IMHO) goes beyond the pale, as I see it. Listen, if I was on the same website as a a Neo-Nazi or Klansman, I'd give them an earful too (and those skinheads haven't killed as many people as the IRI has, right?)

Islamism sucks. So does Zionism. Any political ideology mixed with religion sucks.  

I agree with you, but facts would suggest that Islamism is a much bigger problem for Iranians in this day and time than Zionism is.


AMIR1973

Rosie, Part 1

by AMIR1973 on

What is called intellectually dishonesty can also  at times be a defense mechanism against facing a truth subconsciously perceived as unbearably painful.

I think you raise a good point. In the Iranian political context, I see that manifesting itself as some people's inability or unwillingness to see or admit that the revolution was the biggest disaster for Iranians in many centuries. So they have to cling to this propaganda that is so at odds with the reality on the ground, at the present time and for the past 3 decades.  


Rosie.

Second part. Back specifically to you, Amir

by Rosie. on

Do you completely dismiss the possibility that there's some sort of orchestrated effort to put out the IRI line here at IC?

No.

I see nothing wrong with political epithets. For better or worse, it's not unique to Iranians or IC.

Absolutely. In fact, a good while back, Jahanshah went on this campaign where terms like neo-con and apologist were not to be tolerated. I was horrified, because they mean specific things. But I also knew it was part of his calibration process and it would soon pass. It did.

I understand what you're saying about the level of discourse, but there's nothing wrong with identifying and labeling political orientations.

Now about this level of discourse. In talking about the 'agent' thing, you have to factor in the paranoia element. It's very common among Iranians (and I say this with no judgements, it's also very common with Ashkenazi Jews--my side of the mountain). And Internet exacerbates it wildly. And so frequently here people have gone so far as to accuse Jahanshah of coordinating a cadre of paid agents, to immense accolades from a chorus of others. (Usually the Islamists being accused). The issue of discourse is about health.  How can this be healthy? It may seem at first blush fairly harmless, but it spreads like a disease, and then it reaches grotesque proportions. Grotesque.

And how can it be healthy to go around with this assumption when how many could realistically be part of it? Would you hire Sargord? I wouldn't.  Too vague. IMF? Too hateful. Only convinces people of the opposite. Etc. In the weighing and balancing it does far more harm than good. IMHO.

And anyway, Amir, even if they were all paid, why should that affect the shape of the discourse? They would still just be arguing points anyway.  

(now, if it's a question of accuracy, then those folks have a right to point out the purported inaccuracy).  

Indeed. But as I pointed out in that link I gave you to that 'fascist' blog I wrote, people are very unwilling here to define. Generally they just sling back epithets and that starts the ball rolling and that's the end of that.

(Oh, and btw, cheerleader and groupie aren't specific definable political epithets. Just saying).

In my opinion, there is a fundamental dishonesty to Islamism as an ideology and Islamists as followers of that ideology (and the above fact is just one of many manifestations of that essential dishonesty). In that regard, I see nothing wrong with calling a spade, a spade.

Islamism sucks. So does Zionism. Any political ideology mixed with religion sucks. This is the 21st century. Not feudal Europe or Shogun Japan.


Rosie.

Funny, Amir, (No Fear...)

by Rosie. on

Amir, I think we may have cross-posted. In any case, now I feel you get to the meat of the matter. So I'm going to take up the challenge and address your last post. In two parts. The first may at first seem a digression but it isn't. So here goes.

You quoted me:

After all, how to deal with someone who keeps saying majority rule without rights is a democracy. 

You answered:

Except they don't, Rosie. This is a matter of intellectually dishonesty on their part. IRI is NOT run of the principle of majority rule; rather, it is run on the principle of Rule of the Jurisconsult. 

Of course That's clear. And then both Webster and Encarta include free and equal representation of ALL citizens Once you don't allow any representation of religious minorities such as the Bahai, there is no democracy. On top of it, Wikipedia talks about rights and the 'tyranny of the majority.'

Now, you (No Fear) can say these are Western definitions but this is a western concept, so if you don't accept fhs western definition, you're talking about a different phenomenon

And then of course, we can go back in time. Did the people really vote for Sharia? Velayate Faghi? With areh or neh? Jamshid uses the term 'defrauded'. Were they defrauded?

Then you can go further and talk about Western hypocrisy. Of course that's beyond the scope of definitions, but many people do it. So. Who gives a sh-t? Why should the West ever be the yardstick for Iran?

Oh, we could go on and on. But to talk about intellectual dishonesty, Amir, is only part of the picture. What about emotional dishonesty? I believe (I like to give benefit of the doubt.) that No Fear may rationalize these things because he truly wants (needs) to have faith in that Revolution, that it mattered for something for his country.

No Fear, I really don't want to argue with you. I implore you. You seem like a decent person. How could you, how could you last week on the one hand say 'Rosie, I hear you loud and clear' about Yousef Bozorgmouth's extremism and preach tolerance. And in practically the next breath, next post, tell me you read my post to Fooladi about Hoder without feeling the pain of it all. And the immense contradiction. No Fear, I don't understand you. Do you understand yourself?  

I wanted to have this conversation with you for a while. I even wanted to write a blog to you about it. Call it An Open Letter to you, or maybe No Fair, No Fear. (But--for better and for worse--there won't be any more blogs from me for the foreseeable future).

____________________

You see, Amir, I believe the intellect navigates an essentially feeling organism through a treacherous world. What is called intellectual dishonesty can also  at times be a defense mechanism against facing a truth subconsciously perceived as unbearably painful.

I like to give the benefit of the doubt for as long as I possibly can. It used to work for me wonderfully well. . 


AMIR1973

Rosie

by AMIR1973 on


This groupie/cheerleader thing started in the aftermath of the uprising and the Ahmadinejadis coming here (there never were any before, only Jaleho, remember?)

Do you completely dismiss the possibility that there's some sort of orchestrated effort to put out the IRI line here at IC? There have been reports about the IRGC, for example, having cyber propaganda units (or along those lines).

Rosie, on this I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with political epithets. For better or worse, it's not unique to Iranians or IC. I understand what you're saying about the level of discourse, but there's nothing wrong with identifying and labeling political orientations (now, if it's a question of accuracy, then those folks have a right to point out the purported inaccuracy).  

Admittedly, the Ahmadinejadi 'camp' poses serious problems for me too. After all, how to deal with someone who keeps saying majority rule without rights is a democracy. 

Except they don't, Rosie. This is a matter of intellectually dishonesty on their part. IRI is NOT run of the principle of majority rule; rather, it is run on the principle of Rule of the Jurisconsult. In my opinion, there is a fundamental dishonesty to Islamism as an ideology and Islamists as followers of that ideology (and the above fact is just one of many manifestations of that essential dishonesty). In that regard, I see nothing wrong with calling a spade, a spade. Regards.


Rosie.

hmmmmmmmmm, weeell,

by Rosie. on

I guess that'a about a wrap, don't you think, Amir? Basically I tried to say what I know from experience seemed to work the best for everyone, for the site overall. I'm not saying I've always done my best. Far from. I've learned from some harsh experience what I shouldn't do. And that doesn't mean I haven't repeated it either, btw. It's just that I've found a lot of things here very ugly all around since I've been back here. No doubt I've been part of the ugliness too.

I really just intended to answer Fooladi here because I don't like to leave things dangling. I was very touched that you asked me questions about what I thought and I think I've said pretty much everything I know. Things like what happened on this thread shouldn't. That much I'm sure of. It wasn't even so much the first post, although it was that too. It was how even after the deletion people just wouldn't let it go.

The best litmus test I feel should ultimately be what do you sincerely believe would drive The Moderator the least crazy. Not how you think he should be. Because at the end of the day, who's to say? And the most important yardsticks are the people you just...can't stand.

That's all.

Well, I'll turn into a pumpkin now.


Rosie.

Well, I think that

by Rosie. on

when you start to see the same term bandied about by the different 'camps', that's a sign that the term has lost viable meaning. As an example (and please excuse my writing, two years ago it wasn't as tight..), there's this satire I wrote and it went over big and things can only be successfully satirized when they're a bit silly:

//iranian.com/main/blog/rosie-t/fascists-everywhere-iranian-com

Also under my current account there was You Are Not Iranian, which you probably saw.

This groupie/cheerleader thing started in the aftermath of the uprising and the Ahmadinejadis coming here (there never were any before, only Jaleho, remember?), When I came back here in April it was everywhere: IRI/anti-IRI grouplie/cheerleader. Again, it goes back to principles. One would think people would want to choose the language to lift the discourse to the highest possible level. If you think it's for something other than to polarize and vent.

Admittedly, the Ahmadinejadi 'camp' poses serious problems for me too. After all, how to deal with someone who keeps saying majority rule without rights is a democracy. I mean, maaaybe in letter but not in spirit. That's why we have a UN. (No offense, No Fear but honestly...).  

Even worse than meaningless, these repeated terms become cliches.

______________

As for racist, well, of course it has meaning, but if the meaning didn't penetrate the person I'd try to find a different way. According to the individual person. And another thing, I've found it's not a good idea to say 'you ARE this or that' when you can say 'what you said or did sounds (or is) this or that'. Or sometimes even 'you're being this or that'. Of course the question is always, what do you hope to accomplish? Anything? Or have you no hope and all you want to do is fight?

Look, what can I say? When I was Rosie, the first Rosie, I was able to achieve some minor miracles. I got two of the worst Islam bashers onsite to stop completely and they always thanked me for it. There were others. 

At that time, people used to say I was idealistic. I used to say idealism was the only pragmatism possible when the whole world was on a precipice ready to obliterate itself.

That is, when I was the first Rosie. I had a very strong sense of purpose and mission about this site.


AMIR1973

Rosie

by AMIR1973 on

Why would anyone want to say things that have no meaning?

I can't speak for others, but when I call someone an IRI Groupie, I mean something by it, whether or not others agree or understand or care (some do and some don't). You know, people (and particularly right-wingers) say the same thing about the word "racism" or "racist". They say those words no longer have meaning either. I doubt you would agree with those sentiments--or am I wrong?


Rosie.

The issue is lines in the sand.

by Rosie. on

They are vague, and so they should be. But there comes a point where a clear line has been crossed. One of them is to make sport of someone when they're not even there. This is basic.

When you're dealing with someone who generates so much animosity, that's exactly when the limits should become clear. Such people provide yardsticks. Even if only to make life more tolerable to the publisher. The people who've been here for a really long time know how hard it was for him to even decide to have moderation at all. And how many systems were tried. And not to be blunt, but when a landlord gives you free rent, would you let your dog piss on their carpet?

Lack of these lines in the sand affects how the site is perceived, whether the discourse is productive, how many more sensitive or moderate people will leave (and many have and they've told me why offsite...), and it's also about showing gratitude. And about  people maintaining their own integrity. Ultimately it's about whether the community as a whole is principled or not. Right now it's not. I don't see it that way. 

A good thing would be to look at this thread and see how the first post was deleted and the newer ones weren't when they said the same thing, and understand that it's NOT because Jahanshah's careless or unconcerned, It's because drawing that line in the sand when the mission is free speech is really hard.  So why not make it easier? Don't restate deleted things that can legitmately be construed as offensive. (As an example). That is principled.

Well, I used to be actually even asked to meditate political threads but then I had problems, and then I stayed away too long. I was respected and now I'm resented. And I'm fine with that. I accept it. Until/unless the political demographic or attitude change, I don't see a role for myself here. I said this several weeks ago. I blogged it.  But I let myself get pulled back in. I doubt that will happen again. But I was specifically addressed on this thead about this issue so I've answered and I'm saying what I deeply believe.

I believe people should try to do the principled thing. That's all.

___________

p.s. When people (on all sides) keep saying over and over, ad nauseum, you're a cheerleader, a groupie, you're not Iranian, you're anti-Iran, a traitor, these words no longer have meaning. Why would anyone want to say things that have no meaning?


AMIR1973

Rosie,

by AMIR1973 on

I thought about it, and I don't see it as a problem, even though you might (and I respect your perspective). To me, calling someone an "IRI Groupie" or "Islamist hoodlum" is acceptable (if so deserved), just as calling someone an "Israel-Firster", "neocon", "Zionist", etc. I find NP to be the most intellectually dishonest person on this website, and that irks me. I've been accused of a lot of false things on this website (MKO, Pahlavi foundation). So what, it's nothing to me. I don't believe I've ever used obscenities, made threats or attacked family members. In addition to the name calling, I also try to back up what I say with evidence (and sometimes provide links too). I'm no angel, but I dish it out like I take it. Personally, I'm okay with it.


Rosie.

Amir, don't you see, that's the whole point.

by Rosie. on

I don't believe I've ever gone after you. NP, on the other hand, well what can I say:

'gone after'.  

she's not a woman, she's a man. she's multiple users. she gets paid. she should be deported. she writes for press tv. now she's some old lady in love with khamenei. and if that gets deleted, there's something wrong with the site and....publisher...so what, what are you gonna do about it?

Amir, she isn't even on this thread.

'gone after'.

think about it.

_______________

can't you guys at least stop making extra work for him?


AMIR1973

Rosie, I hear you. I don't

by AMIR1973 on

Rosie, I hear you. I don't believe I've ever gone after you. NP, on the other hand, well what can I say: I am definitely not a fan.


Rosie.

no, i'm not serious.

by Rosie. on

niloufar and i aren't related. i was just trying to show how SILLY this whole business about her (and me) is on this thread.

no she's not my cousin, but she's a very real person and a very decent person. i would also like her to be more passionate when she comes out about human rights issues in Iran (which she does, often). and i don't like words like warmonger and fascist and i don't use them, and yes, i'd like her to be a little less snitty than she's been lately. but i honestly don't know how anyone could take such constant character assassination, and then not even be acknowledged when they put up cheerful or thought-provoking or inspirational blogs that don't even have anything to do with politics, without changing in some way.

niloufar's a big girl. she can-and does-speak up for herself very well. but this upsets me, personally. and i'm not the one who brought it up here. no one's perfect. could people just remember that?

so yes, i was just kidding but what i am serious about is that i don't have much to offer this forum at this time and i would like that to be respected.

peace.


AMIR1973

Rosie: are you serious or just kidding?

by AMIR1973 on

because she's only my cousin, not my sister.

Is Niloufar Parsi really your cousin? I'm curious. Cheers.


Rosie.

fooladi, i wasn't going to..

by Rosie. on

wasn't going to post here for a while (i know, i know, have a handkerchief) but since i see you've written to me, here goes. you wrote: Rosie: You need to change the logo of this site to...

 "iranian.com? - nothing is uncensored"

So why was my comment saying this woman is niloofar P removed? Did she complain? Which part of my comment  was offensive? 

i really don't know why you're asking me but no, i doubt niloufar 'complained' since she's against flagging. but i'm not sure, because she's only my cousin, not my sister. maybe one way of looking at things might be that if anyone's post gets deleted that's like something they'd disapprove of if their child's teacher called them into school about it, they should just let it go with good grace. and not make extra work and stress for the 'deleter'.  fooladi, this isn't a social service agency you're paying for with your hard earned tax dollars. it's a labor of love.

 

 

anyway,  just so you know, at the beginning there was no moderation here. the hope was people would learn to regulate themselves. it didn't work. there were even death threats to people revealing where they lived. there's a distinction between censorship and moderation. but some intelligent, well-educated people here claim they want a free iran but they don't seem to interpret freedom by any standard that people in 'free' countires do. they want more. because they never had 'free speech' in iran. no. just three decades of it in us, uk, u name it.  they deserve more. who's seeing what on the moon?

well, you asked, i answered. but actually i've decided that people are right. none of this is any of my business. if hardly anyone even cared about my hoder blog-all you did was insult niloufar on it-there's not much for me here at this time. so i'll go now, and call up my british cousin so we can decide what to wear to school together tomorrow. feel free to contact me offsite. stay well, be happy, and enjoy your nabiscos. it's been a pleasure :0)

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTqKcojrVY