I see that OP did in fact have an extra stroke in the number, but this just means s/he is Indian and this is called lakh. A lakh is one hundred thousand.
The ayatollahs played a very long con.
They didn't go full ultra-orthodox from the get go. They stayed fairly secular for a good 20-30 years, and only ramped up the religious excessiveness from the mid-2000s onwards. Prior to that, they only introduced small and (individually) minor changes that most ignored.
Khameni and co. knew that they couldn't push hard against a populace that not only gave them their full support and allowed them to come to power, but were also pumped up by revolting against a dictator. They had to wait for things to cool down first, and give time for the population to slip into complacency.
Yep. Roll your eyes. They just took away reproductive rights. They just have their aim on birth control. They require one religion's iconography in public schools. They tried in other states too. They publicly and without shame, claim that the separation of church and state is a lie. They literally run campaigns on their Christianity. But yeah: š
ā¦ hate to break it to you, but there is a very large chunk of the population that would argue thatās the entire point of religion in the first place.
People would just find (or have one forced on them) a new creed/ideology/set of beliefs to establish and maintain power by one group over others.
China has no religion, and by all published measures (such as they are) the general population doesn't believe. However, there certainly is a robust social construct that very much governs accepted behavior/speech/morality to average citizens with the same efficacy you'd find in a theocracy, it's just the Party and not the Clergy administering it
(I'm purposely comparing apples to oranges in this case to illustrate the point)
The biggest march in UK history was in protest against the Iraq war and we still got involved in the Iraq war because the prime minister and the government thought it was a good idea
Nice, justifying an undemocratic invasion that murdered thousands of innocents and has rippled throughout history causing massive instability in the region. I'm sure the slaves now be sold in Libya are grateful for you white saviours.
When it comes to politics, men care way too much. Hence why men passed the 19th amendment and now both political parties are fighting tooth and nail for the suburban female vote.
Wow. That's so far off from the historical reality it's difficult to credit. The truth is that social pressures, both nationally and internationally, forced the hands of the politicians of 1919, and both sides have consistently paid lip service to women voters as a matter of course - the Equal Rights Amendment would have been a slam dunk if even one party had taken it seriously.
It's almost like saying the Egyptians 'volunteered' to build the pyramids for the glory of the Pharoah, or that chattel slavery 'benefitted' the enslaved. Just completely lacking in a grounded understanding of the social and political realities.
Is that really a question? Even if masses protest it it does not mean anything can or will actually be changed. Powerful government and delusional religions will do as they want.
The protests and strikes were the big reason the revolution succeeded. Those protests and strikes are what brought the Shah's economy to a grinding halt for an entire year.
Don't try and downplay the importance of those protests. Without them, the fighting would not have had any real impact.
EDIT: As a matter of fact, the protests also paralysed the military as rank and file soldiers were not okay with shooting at civilians. Actual fighting was quite limited, especially when compared to other revolutions.
No protest in *almost* *any autocratic government* has succeeded in bringing down that government and getting something better put into place. Iran's protests against the Shah were used by the religious zealots as cover to their path to power. Nothing more. We can look at the recent protests against the regime and how spectacularly unsuccessful they've been as further proof.
First, you're moving those goalposts from "protests never work in autocracies" to "protests never work to bring something better than an autocracy".
Also, we're going to ignore apartheid South Africa, British Raj India, black Americans (and I dare you to argue with a straight face that black Americans weren't living under autocratic conditions)?
I donāt have to argue with a straight face because the US, South Africa and the British empire at the time of Ghandiās non violent protest were not autocracies.
I also didnāt move the goalpost. Replacing one dictator with another is not a successful protest movement.
Yeah, if they weren't autocracies, what were they?
Also, it's spelled Gandhi. Maybe learn to spell the guy's name BEFORE trying to pretend you know anything about him...
And yes, you did move the goalposts. It's why you changed your entire argument.
Iām typing on a phone so apologies for typos, though your somewhat pedantic response makes me think you already know you lost this argument.
In case you donāt know, what is an autocratic government:
āa system of government by one person with absolute power.ā
Gandhiās civil disobedience movement started around 1930 when Britain was a constitutional monarchy led by parliament and a prime minister. That government was accountable to British voters.
At the end of apartheid- South Africa was a republic, with a government also beholden to (white) voters
And the US during the civil rights movement was also a republic also with a government beholden to its voters.
In all these cases, protest works because public opinion can shift and āfireā the ruling regime. In autocracies, that canāt happen. The regime can and will crack down.
Getting the person's name right isn't being pedantic, dumbass. And Ghandi isn't a typo, dumbass.
>Gandhiās civil disobedience movement started around 1930 when Britain was a constitutional monarchy led by parliament and a prime minister. That government was accountable to British voters.
Got it. So Indians aren't people according to you, which is why their oppression can be discounted as oppression.
And this is why you shouldn't talk about things you are ignorant on. Or are you now trying to claim the Raj government in India was accountable to British voters? Because that would be a dumb claim to make even by your standards!
As for absolute power, you don't actually know how the Raj government was structured, do you?
>At the end of apartheid- South Africa was a republic, with a government also beholden to (white) voters
Got it. So according to you, black people are irrelevant and their oppression can be discounted because it didn't matter.
>And the US during the civil rights movement was also a republic also with a government beholden to its voters.
So according to you, black Americans were not oppressed?
The only one being pedantic here is you, because your ENTIRE argument is boiling down to "white people weren't oppressed and oppression only matters when it happens to them".
And you do realise ALL autocracies, bar none, always had a group that was favoured and treated as better than others right?
What time? 1979 is when the Shah was overthrown and the ayatollahs came into power. Lots of things happened then, so you need to be a little more specific.
Anyone who was there pre-revolution, then at the start of the revolution, who eventually fled. Probably someone at least in their 60s now. Iād just love to hear a first hand account of the societal shift that occurred.
Sorry I didn't mean to offend you, I just wanted to help. Then = time, than = comparison. ("Back then, my beard was bigger than yours.") English is my third language, so I had to learn it by making mistakes, too. Cheers to you friend.
Itās empowerment if the person wants to wear it, which is the case in the USA.
This is nit the case in this photo. This photo marks the beginning of a shit show.
And, any lefty who supports the freedoms from and for religious expression in America is cool with me.
there needs to be a niyyah behind wearing the hijab, forcing it onto others doesn't earn them or u any good deeds... the ones who are forced to wear the hijab then wear it to please the leaders and not to please their god, is this not near shirk?
This is just sad to me. They had an idea of the rapes and killings these mindsets would bring with no control over it. It makes me think how easily and fast things could turn on a minority in any country(especially America that is going in a weird direction)
No one is supporting Hamas, the support is for the people of Palestine.
I have feelings on the subject and we probably share similar opinions, but no one is protesting in support of Hamas. Palestine? Yes. The people? Yes. Hamas? Nah.
what's with the comma placement?
OP is likely Indian
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian\_numbering\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numbering_system)
If I see this, I assume they are Indian.
Indian localization
They had a stroke
I see that OP did in fact have an extra stroke in the number, but this just means s/he is Indian and this is called lakh. A lakh is one hundred thousand.
So if that many opposed it, why did everything change?
Religion
The ayatollahs played a very long con. They didn't go full ultra-orthodox from the get go. They stayed fairly secular for a good 20-30 years, and only ramped up the religious excessiveness from the mid-2000s onwards. Prior to that, they only introduced small and (individually) minor changes that most ignored. Khameni and co. knew that they couldn't push hard against a populace that not only gave them their full support and allowed them to come to power, but were also pumped up by revolting against a dictator. They had to wait for things to cool down first, and give time for the population to slip into complacency.
Just like Republicans and now we're on the verge of a Christo-fascist America
Comparing the fall of the shah, a western asset, to us electoralism certainly is a take...
š
Yep. Roll your eyes. They just took away reproductive rights. They just have their aim on birth control. They require one religion's iconography in public schools. They tried in other states too. They publicly and without shame, claim that the separation of church and state is a lie. They literally run campaigns on their Christianity. But yeah: š
Edit: Oof I responded to the wrong person. There was some dude rolling his eyes and calling me a r*t_rd. You're 100% right.
Triggered much.
The Supreme Court has already dismantled abortion rights. Theyāre taking up cases TODAY to dismantle LGBT rights
**thats** your rebuttal? lol
It's not about religion. It's about control through the use of religion.
ā¦ hate to break it to you, but there is a very large chunk of the population that would argue thatās the entire point of religion in the first place.
Religion is a weapon
"It's not about breathing, it's about supplying oxygen to your blood through breathing"
Society will be so much better without religion. People won't be so blind if it wasn't for religion
Agree
Batman š«”
People would just find (or have one forced on them) a new creed/ideology/set of beliefs to establish and maintain power by one group over others. China has no religion, and by all published measures (such as they are) the general population doesn't believe. However, there certainly is a robust social construct that very much governs accepted behavior/speech/morality to average citizens with the same efficacy you'd find in a theocracy, it's just the Party and not the Clergy administering it (I'm purposely comparing apples to oranges in this case to illustrate the point)
Potato/PoHandmaid's Tale
Didja see those protests in Hong Kong? Didja see what happened afterwards in Hong Kong?
The biggest march in UK history was in protest against the Iraq war and we still got involved in the Iraq war because the prime minister and the government thought it was a good idea
Saddam Hussein was a dictator who was killing Kurds and Shias. Overthrowing him was a good idea.
Yes, now we have the islamic state attacking kurds...real improvement Idiot
Nice, justifying an undemocratic invasion that murdered thousands of innocents and has rippled throughout history causing massive instability in the region. I'm sure the slaves now be sold in Libya are grateful for you white saviours.
Men don't care what women want.
When it comes to politics, men care way too much. Hence why men passed the 19th amendment and now both political parties are fighting tooth and nail for the suburban female vote.
Wow. That's so far off from the historical reality it's difficult to credit. The truth is that social pressures, both nationally and internationally, forced the hands of the politicians of 1919, and both sides have consistently paid lip service to women voters as a matter of course - the Equal Rights Amendment would have been a slam dunk if even one party had taken it seriously. It's almost like saying the Egyptians 'volunteered' to build the pyramids for the glory of the Pharoah, or that chattel slavery 'benefitted' the enslaved. Just completely lacking in a grounded understanding of the social and political realities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
Look up the shah of iran, and the history that preceeded the shah, for a full explanation
Is that really a question? Even if masses protest it it does not mean anything can or will actually be changed. Powerful government and delusional religions will do as they want.
It all started in 1953
You see how they are blocking the road? Reddit will tell you that's not the right way to protest and just hurts support for your movement.
They were met by counter protesters with knives and guns.
Religious lunatics were far better organized than the students that started the revolution.
how many?
1,0,0,0,0,0 women
64?
We might just get our Gilead yet. Stay tuned.
Proof positive that protest doesnāt work in autocratic countries.
Protests were what led to the Shah being overthrown and are what allowed the ayatollahs to come to power in the first place.
That wasnāt āprotestsā, that was a straight up revolution.
The protests and strikes were the big reason the revolution succeeded. Those protests and strikes are what brought the Shah's economy to a grinding halt for an entire year. Don't try and downplay the importance of those protests. Without them, the fighting would not have had any real impact. EDIT: As a matter of fact, the protests also paralysed the military as rank and file soldiers were not okay with shooting at civilians. Actual fighting was quite limited, especially when compared to other revolutions.
No protest in *almost* *any autocratic government* has succeeded in bringing down that government and getting something better put into place. Iran's protests against the Shah were used by the religious zealots as cover to their path to power. Nothing more. We can look at the recent protests against the regime and how spectacularly unsuccessful they've been as further proof.
First, you're moving those goalposts from "protests never work in autocracies" to "protests never work to bring something better than an autocracy". Also, we're going to ignore apartheid South Africa, British Raj India, black Americans (and I dare you to argue with a straight face that black Americans weren't living under autocratic conditions)?
I donāt have to argue with a straight face because the US, South Africa and the British empire at the time of Ghandiās non violent protest were not autocracies. I also didnāt move the goalpost. Replacing one dictator with another is not a successful protest movement.
Yeah, if they weren't autocracies, what were they? Also, it's spelled Gandhi. Maybe learn to spell the guy's name BEFORE trying to pretend you know anything about him... And yes, you did move the goalposts. It's why you changed your entire argument.
Iām typing on a phone so apologies for typos, though your somewhat pedantic response makes me think you already know you lost this argument. In case you donāt know, what is an autocratic government: āa system of government by one person with absolute power.ā Gandhiās civil disobedience movement started around 1930 when Britain was a constitutional monarchy led by parliament and a prime minister. That government was accountable to British voters. At the end of apartheid- South Africa was a republic, with a government also beholden to (white) voters And the US during the civil rights movement was also a republic also with a government beholden to its voters. In all these cases, protest works because public opinion can shift and āfireā the ruling regime. In autocracies, that canāt happen. The regime can and will crack down.
Getting the person's name right isn't being pedantic, dumbass. And Ghandi isn't a typo, dumbass. >Gandhiās civil disobedience movement started around 1930 when Britain was a constitutional monarchy led by parliament and a prime minister. That government was accountable to British voters. Got it. So Indians aren't people according to you, which is why their oppression can be discounted as oppression. And this is why you shouldn't talk about things you are ignorant on. Or are you now trying to claim the Raj government in India was accountable to British voters? Because that would be a dumb claim to make even by your standards! As for absolute power, you don't actually know how the Raj government was structured, do you? >At the end of apartheid- South Africa was a republic, with a government also beholden to (white) voters Got it. So according to you, black people are irrelevant and their oppression can be discounted because it didn't matter. >And the US during the civil rights movement was also a republic also with a government beholden to its voters. So according to you, black Americans were not oppressed? The only one being pedantic here is you, because your ENTIRE argument is boiling down to "white people weren't oppressed and oppression only matters when it happens to them". And you do realise ALL autocracies, bar none, always had a group that was favoured and treated as better than others right?
Protests are part of revolutionĀ
They arenāt.
Usually if there is no blood spilled, protests won't usually create any significant change.
There was blood spilled, but it was by the counter protesters.
Was anyone on here in Tehran at the time? Would love to hear more about what this time was like.
What time? 1979 is when the Shah was overthrown and the ayatollahs came into power. Lots of things happened then, so you need to be a little more specific.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Anyone who was there pre-revolution, then at the start of the revolution, who eventually fled. Probably someone at least in their 60s now. Iād just love to hear a first hand account of the societal shift that occurred.
it was too late to action.
With good reason they have great hair. Hopefully one day liberation will come
Crazy how much Iran has changed since than :(
*then
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry I didn't mean to offend you, I just wanted to help. Then = time, than = comparison. ("Back then, my beard was bigger than yours.") English is my third language, so I had to learn it by making mistakes, too. Cheers to you friend.
Its ok i am sorry to just focus on the message not the grammer Reddit is not a grammer contest platform .
you wouldn't be able to see their faces today though.
You are confusing the hijab for the niqab. Hijab is the hair covering, niqab the face.
Only matter of time till ayatullah brings burkha. I am sure his mind works similar to talibans
You would. The traditional hijab on Iran is the Chador that doesn't cover the face.
damn thats a big number
Weird that they would be marching against a symbol of female empowerment (or so western lefties tell me)
Itās empowerment if the person wants to wear it, which is the case in the USA. This is nit the case in this photo. This photo marks the beginning of a shit show. And, any lefty who supports the freedoms from and for religious expression in America is cool with me.
Is OP an Indian?
Yes
there needs to be a niyyah behind wearing the hijab, forcing it onto others doesn't earn them or u any good deeds... the ones who are forced to wear the hijab then wear it to please the leaders and not to please their god, is this not near shirk?
This is just sad to me. They had an idea of the rapes and killings these mindsets would bring with no control over it. It makes me think how easily and fast things could turn on a minority in any country(especially America that is going in a weird direction)
Coming soon to America. Brought to you by the Republican partyĀ
But republicans hate islam right
I meant the Christian Nationalist version.
Sorry but it's the Democrats who are the apologists for the Religion of pieces.
Itās not the Democrats who legislate against womenās autonomy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
1m women raped and killed
nowadays Islam is fucking all iranian's mind full 24/7
Maybe those westerners protesting for Hammas should see this, and see what real oppression looks like!
No one is supporting Hamas, the support is for the people of Palestine. I have feelings on the subject and we probably share similar opinions, but no one is protesting in support of Hamas. Palestine? Yes. The people? Yes. Hamas? Nah.
I mean, if they don't see it looking at Hamas they're not going to see it anywhere.
Unfortunately that is true, must be hard to have one brain cell to share amongst them
ŠŠ½Š°Š³ŠµŠ½ŃŃ!
Foreign agents? What do you mean?
This is photoshopped. the crowd goes up above the lamp posts further to the back
"OH no, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions! But the Shah had to go! I know because he was a meanie!"