Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 105

On February 20 2019 21:19 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On February 19 2019 19:16 Loco wrote:   On February 19 2019 01:06 Stroggoz wrote: I actually kind of agree to a large extent with the economic 'rational person' model. I mean it's uses are for thereotical purposes. For some reason this gets critiqued very harshly, but it makes sense to think of people as at least somewhat rational-after all there is an entire industry (prublic relations) devoted to making people irrational. Without this industry, the model wouldn't be half bad. of course it will always be flawed. They're not making people irrational, as in, they are not transforming rational beings into irrational beings... they are tapping into an irrationality that is built-in, for their own advantage. The field of behavioral economics has served to demonstrate that beyond the shadow of a doubt, we are not 'rational man', largely by looking at an array of biases. Just reading Kahneman would disabuse you of this foolish notion. It's something continental philosophers have known from Schopenhauer onward. Bernays first needed Freud's understanding of the unconscious in order to "get to work", which Freud developed from Schopenhauer. The existentialists knew this too, beginning with Dostoevsky. Edgar Morin developed from Dostoevsky the notion of homo demens (mad man), which is complementary and antagonistic to homo sapiens (rational man). We typically go from one pole to the other, from one moment to the next, and those who stay in either extremes become dangerous. Georges Bataille probably takes it the furthest in "The Accursed Share" with his theory of consumption. The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio also has some very important contributions on this topic. That's what i meant when i said 'making people irrational', it's really obnoxious when you point out stuff like that i obviously know about or meant. No, the research doesn't show that people are irrational, just that we are capable of doing irrational things, particularly under certain ciricumstances. The concept in economics is not meant to be taken literally, it's an abstract model. It's like taking concepts in physics like perfectly frictionless slopes literally and saying that's how the world is.

It isn't obvious what you're saying when you say things like "I actually kind of agree to a large extent with the economic 'rational person' model. I mean it's uses are for thereotical purposes. For some reason this gets critiqued very harshly, but it makes sense to think of people as at least somewhat rational". It's really vague and insubstantial.

What I know about this model, born from Nash's game theory, was that it served a crucial role in the success of Reaganomics and selling individualistic consumerism to the masses, along with Bernay's help. It's not a model that has any value in a working society. It doesn't say that people are at least somewhat rational, it says that people are "consistently rational and narrowly self-interested" or "utility maximizers". What I got from your post is that if there weren't these capitalist predators around, we'd be just as individualistic, more rational, more efficient utility maximizers, and I'm saying no, we wouldn't be. You even said that it's harshly criticized, so you should know that it's not a vague model. I would certainly be one of its harshest critics, yet now you make it sound like we are more in agreement with each other than not. It's also not as simple as saying we are either rational or irrational... there is also the non-rational.

On February 20 2019 21:14 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On February 18 2019 21:26 Stroggoz wrote: I agree with Drone on this one-the alt right is not seriously big atm. Although it expresses nazi ideology, there are far more violent groups in society, namely our capitalist overlords-their violence just from exploiting the war in congo and the war in Iraq/afghanistan still massively outweighs the alt-right. I wasn't going to respond to this post because I feel I've already refuted the relevant points, and because it's just infuriating to me that you fall for this kind of either/or logic. (Chris Hedges does too in his interview with Mark Bray). I'm responding now because I just saw this quote being posted on reddit and I know that you can appreciate it. “But the point is, if things ever come to a crunch in the United States, this massive part of the population - I think it’s something like a third of the adult population by now - could be the basis for some kind of a fascist movement, readily. For example, if the country sinks deeply into a recession, a depoliticized population could very easily be mobilized into thinking that it’s somebody else’s fault: "Why are our lives collapsing? There have to bad guys out there doing something for things to be going so badly” - and the bad guys can be Jews, or homosexuals, or blacks, or Communists, whatever you pick. If you can whip people into irrational frenzies like that, they can be extremely dangerous: that’s what 1930’s fascism came from, and something like that could very easily happen here." Understanding Power (1989) - Noam Chomsky They are not disconnected issues, they co-arise, and they both are not a future threat, but an immediate one. There is a rift between those who have accurately assessed the situation, who understand that the contradictions of capitalism are the root issue, and those who don't and who lash out against an identified scapegoat. These people are not just planning to harm people once they are in power -- they already are, and the harm has been increasing. Their victims have to defend themselves, and we have to support them in however way we can if we have any integrity. It's not by saying "oh these alt-right guys are not a threat, look elsewhere for the real problem" that you do so. First of all, the far-right isn't small, they have a fucking president. Secondly, even if it were, the historical evidence shows that we should nip fascism in the bud, because we can never know what small group will become a large one, and once it happens, it's all too late. Vaguely talking about education as a solution isn't helpful either. The education system is structured similarly to the media; it serves capital and it will resist the reforms that threaten it. Another thing that Chomsky points out and which should be obvious to everyone is that you don't have time to be informed when you're dealing with precarious job situations or you're a student with a lot of debt. "When you trap people into a system of debt, they can't afford the time to think, and they are unlikely to try to change the system". If people are unlikely to try to change things, then all that's left is to protect the most vulnerable until that changes.

yeah i agree with Noam Chomsky that the risk of facism is big, i also agree with his response on how to deal with it. Ok so i said education and it is kind of vague, i mean the kind of education that these people arn't exposed to and that people like Chomsky are doing, basically pointing out the important things in society-who runs it, what are the major problems, and how to deal with it constructively. Basically a correct analysis of society rather than the incorrect one that the alt-right have.

I also agree with Chomsk'y position on Antifa, and think that his response to growing threat's of facism is the more constructive one. The alt right are quite a lot more passive than the Nazi's who were employed to murder leftists long before they rose to power, so where is the legitimacy for violence? I don't get it, and it is wrong to deny them a speech platform as well, in principle. If we beleive that as a principle it doesn't matter what their ideology is. Also yes the roots of the alt right are at large part capitalist organization, I think we should deal with the root's of the problem.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...g-anti-fascist-alt-left-a7906406.html

There are plenty of people "telling it like it is" -- the issue is not that there is a lack of "truth-tellers", it's that there is a lack of all of the qualities that one needs to have in order to be able to pay attention to them and to learn from them, both as a matter of character and as a matter of culture. You need a certain culture, you need time to develop it, you need a certain character, a willingness to want to become more knowledgeable, more moral, and you need courage to act. This is a foundation that is laid out early on in life. Curious people, rebellious people, they are not made later in life, their values conflicted with those of their culture relatively early. Once you're older, your prejudices are your reality, especially if they have helped you achieve a satisfactory social status, and what has the most importance is probably your career, your image, or your kids, not changing society. So it has to start early, and the focus has to be on the next generations. There is no hope in educating current committed fascists. If you can't institutionalize this kind of education because its a threat to the dominant system, then you need to fight for a stateless society that would allow such an education to exist.

It doesn't really tell me anything that you agree with Chomsky (something I already knew). There are arguments to be made on both sides but they aren't found in anything Chomsky has written on the subject. He doesn't present the arguments made by anarchists/anti-fascists. It's just his sentiments. Like, there is someone who disagrees with him in the article you linked making a great point, but we find no answer from Chomsky. There's nothing I can do to change my mind if he doesn't present any arguments. Where is the evidence that antifa is a "gift to the right"? It's been active since the 1920s, so he should back it up with historical evidence, but I can't find it. On the other hand, there is a lot of literature challenging your views which you could easily get your hands on. Mark Bray's book deals with every single "anti-antifa" argument that has been made by you and others in this thread, and I think it does a fine job of, if not refuting them, at least presenting a thought-provoking alternative to them. It's well-researched.

"Also yes the roots of the alt right are at large part capitalist organization, I think we should deal with the root's of the problem."

Again you present this as an either/or. Either I take a pain-killer or I go to the dentist to get my tooth fixed. No, if it can, it has to happen simultaneously. If I can find a dentist to fix my tooth, great. If not, at least pain killers allow me to function day to day. People have to be able to feel safe in their immediate environment. They shouldn't have to wait until capitalism has ended. If there is no opposition, there is growth, and there is more fear. It's part of every revolutionary project to oppose fascism directly. Look at the current success of Rojava and the ideology behind what they do. Do you think they should have stopped advancing on ISIS territory when the last members of ISIS suddenly became boxed into a 700mx700m area? They are small, no longer a threat, right? Should the YPG/YPJ bring those who survived back and give them a platform so that everyone can express themselves equally?

For me there are real issues with antifa as it exists at least in the US/Canada which should be more talked about, but it sucks because so much time is wasted debating whether opposition to neo-fascism is warranted or not. I can understand the liberal's objections, but not the leftist's. There's really no sense in wanting a horizontal society and thinking that fascism has a place in it. I can never forgive the excess of Hedges who said it was "the narcissism of small differences" between fascists and anti-fascists... the narcissism of small differences is entirely on the left, and if that fragmentation is not overcome, and if more liberals do not come to their senses and actually become leftists, the left has zero chance of winning.

This is gold

dude had me at "so im taking orders from the Murdochs"... cmon mr anchor, do you think you're talking to a 12yo thats going to take such a lame bait jeez.... if you're gonna do shitty stuff at least be prepared to plausibly have counterarguments to topics on which you might get attacked... how is he not prepared for an argument like this one.. it blows my mind... does he put any effort in his work at all wot

"Several hundred German neo-Nazis took part in the fascist "Day of Honor" in Budapest on 9 February 2019. With swastikas, SS runes and the name-giving symbol of the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party who collaborated with National Socialist Germany, a total of around 3000 demonstrators moved through the Hungarian capital. In speeches, Jews were openly harassed, and the Dortmund neo-Nazi Matthias Deyda concluded his speech with a quotation from Adolf Hitler.

The extreme right-wing demonstrators, some of whom wore historical uniforms of the fascist armies, referred to the Battle of Budapest in the winter of 1945. German troops of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS as well as the Hungarian Army had tried in February to break through a blockade of the Red Army. Several tens of thousands of soldiers died, and only a few hundred succeeded in breaking out.

Neo-Nazis have been commemorating this event in Budapest since 1997. In 2003 the Hungarian branch of the "Blood and Honour" network, banned in Germany, took over the lead of the organisation. According to cultural scientist Magdalena Marsovszky, the memorial day found its way into the official politics of remembrance through the government of Viktor Orbán and today influences the whole of Hungary in terms of cultural policy. "

On February 20 2019 20:27 Stroggoz wrote: both RT and BBC are massive propaganda agencies. One is favourable to the british establishment, the other is favourable to Putin and the russian establishment. 'Socialized' model means the media is owned and run by it's journalists. Now you can get bad journalists and good ones running their own media. John Pilger is part of a network of dissident intellectuals on the left that have been suppressed from the corporate media throughout their entire lives. Their articles get posted on various independent media outlets like counterpunch, zmag, ect. I probably learn't more about the vietnam war from Pilger than anyone else, it's shocking when you compare his perspective on that war with the one that is taught in school. As for government owned media, it is not to be trusted but it typically has better standards than the private media if it has a public service role, however a lot of government owned media has a corporate structure similar to privately owned media, meaning they are very similar-they both pursue profit the only difference is profit goes to the government instead of shareholders. And of course if the media is owned by a totalitarian government like Russia Today is, it's going to be blatently biased. In any case, it's not a choice between private media and government media as you say baal, there is the 3rd choice of socialism; (media run by the journalists and people who work in it), there are plenty examples of good media running on socialistic production methods.

The media is run by whoever pays the bills, you cant pretend it is run independently by journalistbut as long as the government finances it, its ultimately under its control.

Sure you can build systems to try to keep them independant and hinder attempts of government control but these same systems are prone to corruption and abuse and they will always be at risk of being taken over by totalitarian governments.


I'm interested, what are good examples of socialistic production media?

On February 20 2019 18:43 Loco wrote: I read the guardian article. It's convincing, I have no reason to doubt its veracity. From the way that it paints gay life in Iran right now, according to people who live there, it's better than it is in Brasil by a long shot. Remind me what Trump and his administration think of Brasil's homophobic leader again? You know, the place that is reported to have the highest LGBT murder rate in the world? Oh, right, they praise him.

I thought we just said it's not the government's fault, it's the people's fault

but weird because brasilians are brown also hmmm

you know brasil has one of the highest murder rates period in the world? and rio has gay beaches. is there a gay beach in iran i wonder

On February 21 2019 03:01 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 20 2019 20:27 Stroggoz wrote: both RT and BBC are massive propaganda agencies. One is favourable to the british establishment, the other is favourable to Putin and the russian establishment. 'Socialized' model means the media is owned and run by it's journalists. Now you can get bad journalists and good ones running their own media. John Pilger is part of a network of dissident intellectuals on the left that have been suppressed from the corporate media throughout their entire lives. Their articles get posted on various independent media outlets like counterpunch, zmag, ect. I probably learn't more about the vietnam war from Pilger than anyone else, it's shocking when you compare his perspective on that war with the one that is taught in school. As for government owned media, it is not to be trusted but it typically has better standards than the private media if it has a public service role, however a lot of government owned media has a corporate structure similar to privately owned media, meaning they are very similar-they both pursue profit the only difference is profit goes to the government instead of shareholders. And of course if the media is owned by a totalitarian government like Russia Today is, it's going to be blatently biased. In any case, it's not a choice between private media and government media as you say baal, there is the 3rd choice of socialism; (media run by the journalists and people who work in it), there are plenty examples of good media running on socialistic production methods. The media is run by whoever pays the bills, you cant pretend it is run independently by journalistbut as long as the government finances it, its ultimately under its control. Sure you can build systems to try to keep them independant and hinder attempts of government control but these same systems are prone to corruption and abuse and they will always be at risk of being taken over by totalitarian governments. I'm interested, what are good examples of socialistic production media?

I just named them: Democracy now, Counterpunch, the real news network, zmag. There are quite a few scattered all over the place, i don't read them all-they tend to leech off each other. There is some junk in the socialized/radical media, but some gems as well. Imo democracy now is the best tv media outlet. I also subscribe to websites of journalists/academics I think are the best; John Pilger's site, Dean Baker, chomsky. Nathan Robinson. Basically gotta search for the good stuff.

Personally i find the corporate media to be highly informative even with all of it's biases, i still read the new york times a lot. Simply because they have billions of dollars to spend, they can afford to be informative on a lot of things where the socialistic media are struggling for money. The new york times actually reported a lot of war crimes in iraq, but in an ideological way where they thought those crimes were a good thing. So i mean if they do that, it's still informative, if you seperate the facts from the value judgements.

As for corruption, all of the magazine's i mention are basically run by people who chose their moral principles over working for the corporate media. There are certainly a lot of journalists who feel the pressure and cave in,turn towards the corporate media. I wouldn't really call that corruption though. The other problems they face are funding-since they do not work with advertisers, money has to come in from somewhere. That's a serious challenge.

@loco i checked out that book and am reading through it

good to know

I guess I should post this while I'm at it.

It's not really fair to compare Brasil to Iran on the LGBT now is it? It's quite obvious the gay people would have much worse life in Iran, they would not even come out, as they know they'd be instantly prosecuted, which obviously decreases the crime rates against gays there.... Brasil, on the other hand, is going to a change where gay people are portrayed as the evil force.

So if you claim that Brasil is the nation with fastest crime rate increase on LGBT people, then you're probably right. But if you wanna compare the standard of life of a gay person in Brasil and Iran... Well you can't cause the situation in Iran is so bad, you wouldn't even know how many gay people there are, they would get executed if they'd come out... They d have to live a life of lies and forcing themselves into relationships which they don't want to play plausible roles in society....

I feel like you take any data quite naively Loco. You can't simply take numbers without acknowledging all aspects of the topic, nor use data that has gone under the treatment of questionable methods. Always question the data you read...

Your post completely ignores the context of my response and what Santafairy was arguing, which was basically about giving the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt for wanting to eradicate homophobia, and it completely ignores direct evidence in the Guardian article quoted that refutes what you just said about gay people in Iran fearing to come out by fear of being punished by the state. If you're not going to pay attention to what is being argued or what evidence was presented, I'm not going to keep repeating myself and take your hand to help you understand, it's frankly tiring. Thank you for the unsolicited advice on how to think critically.

Honestly, I should have just avoided responding to that garbage post to begin with. If you think there is a world in which Trump and his administration not only care about the LGBT community, despite their horrible record, but wants to help them worldwide, and that they also believe in this agenda more than they believe in American imperialism, then you live in an alternate reality, and I shouldn't be indulging someone who is just so far gone. Mike Pence openly said that he believed in conversion therapy, for christ's sake. He also signed a bill that prevented same-sex marriage in Indiana just four years ago. Give me a fucking break. Point being, I could have just as easily made the same point by saying that Saudi Arabia also uses the death penalty against gay people but the US won't do anything about it, just like they don't do anything about Bolsonaro, because it's not about homophobia. US interference in other countries is not about human rights in general.

Edit:

Actually, Trump doesn't even know about it.... lol. What a world.

It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of a pro-gay policy coming from a homophobic President. Considering that the Out article states that this is being spearheaded by a gay U.S. diplomat it seems just as likely that this is something that Trump isn't heavily invested in as opposed to being some insidious imperialistic plot. I don't see how targeting countries in the Middle East / Africa / Caribbean is strong evidence that this is a racist/paternalistic move. That sounds like a good place to start when it comes to persecution of gays.

spearheaded by a racist U.S. diplomat* I think you meant. if he really cared about gay rights he would be punishing brasil, a country where gay marriage is legal and was legalized 2 years before the US, not targeting an innocent islamic theocracy

Loco can you tell us more about how the media who covered smirkgate as well as jussie smollett's original bullshit story is too easy on white supremacy. Obviously they're not doing enough to ostracize white supremacists and we need to figure out how to be more effective. Maybe have networks enlist fascist-punching correspondents to go on location? You know, gonzo style.

How absolutely clueless you have to be to believe that its worse for gays in Brazil than in Iran.

Brazil, a second capital of transexual women in the world, with actual trans beauty peagants, with huge gay parades, gay beaches and the Rio de janeiro Carnival which si probably the biggest and gayest event in the entire world lol.

Brazil is probably the most pro gay country in all of latinamerica.


Please Loco continue going full SJW and tell us how actually Islam is feminist and the hijab is an empowering symbol.

guy with MAGA sign is punched at Berkley because he is "inciting hatred"

Loco's brilliant ideas at work

I mean if the guardian writes it, then it must be true.

My response falls quite well into the context, if you don't have a tunnel vision that is.

Keep believing absurd claims by western media which confirm your point of view though. Also what I'm saying in no way means that Trump's administration is actually doing anything positive for the LGBT community. How did u get that idea? They are obviously trying to find ways to convert popular opinion of the public towards hatred of Iran throughout whatever means necessary, I have been saying the USA will be going to Iran for years, even before Trump, even before Syria. Iran is the only country in the Middle East that is real opposition to Israel, or in other words total domination of the USA in the region...


P.S. No shit the people are scared more of society rather than the government. There is a good quote by Sartre on the topic "Hell is other people". Chances are you are gonna get wrecked by other people before u get executed by the government. The same thing that happens to non EU member countries in Eastern Europe, where it's not illegal to be gay, but you will most likely be the victim of hate crimes if you come out.

so chapter 5 of the antifa handbook:

He says "In my opinion “no platforming” fascists often infringes upon their speech, but this infringement is justified for its role in the political struggle against fascism." I don't agree with this even if it worked. So from the get go this guy is not someone i can agree with-freedom of speech is something i accept as a moral axiom, it requires no rational justification-i begin with it. It appears from this book that all of Antifa are oppossed to freedom of expression. (He cites a lot of examples of this).

But first of all what is supposed to work? The end goal ought to be to get the fascist to see the foolishness in their beleifs. He cites beating them in physical combat of antifa working-but It is not evident to me that this is getting fascist people to realize they are wrong. Rather it just suppresses them.

The 19th century liberal philosophers argued that openness will allow the good ideas to float to the top. Mark Bray says there is empirical evidence against this:

"The liberal alternative to militant anti-fascism is to have faith in the power of rational discourse, the police, and the institutions of government to prevent the ascension of a fascist regime. As we have established, this formula has failed on several notable occasions. Given the documented shortcomings of “liberal anti-fascism” and the failure of the allied strategy of appeasement leading up to World War II, a more convincing argument can be made that allowing fascism to develop and expand runs the documented risk of sliding into “totalitarianism.” If we don’t stop them when they are small, do we stop them when they are medium-sized? If not when they are medium-sized, then when they are large? When they’re in government? Do we need to wait until the swastikas are unfurled from government buildings before we defend ourselves?"

He doesn't quite seem to get what freedom of speech is and isn't. Firstly, we should recognize that after ww1 the self identified 'liberal' capitalists employed the Nazi's to murder the left movements in Germany. Secondly, yes the Western powers had a tollerant attitude to facism. This was a political relation elites had in the west with facism, it has nothing to do with free speech. This is an example of opposing speech from left-anarchist and communist movements by supporting a fascist movement, and through violence. He has previous examples of how liberals oppose free speech more than antifa; by locking people up in jail on drug charges. OK, this is a bad thing that society does but i don't see how it's got anything to do with infringing on speech.

Not that i care about slippery slopes, but he points out a slippery slope fallacy a couple pages before making that one.

I do not see anti-platforming as an act of self defense. Comparisons with Nazi's don't apply, as the nazi's were used for political assassinations from early on, and grew from there; they were a violent movement. In those cases violence from leftists was an act of self defense. If the alt right carry out similar crimes here the state will punish them severely.

From my personal experience my instincts would suggest the 19th century liberal philosophers like Mill are still correct, until i see good empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.

On February 22 2019 06:36 Baalim wrote: How absolutely clueless you have to be to believe that its worse for gays in Brazil than in Iran. Brazil, a second capital of transexual women in the world, with actual trans beauty peagants, with huge gay parades, gay beaches and the Rio de janeiro Carnival which si probably the biggest and gayest event in the entire world lol. Brazil is probably the most pro gay country in all of latinamerica.

I'm done wasting my time with you & this is the only time I will repeat myself on this subject and I'm doing so only because you're talking about Latin America, being Latin American yourself, acting like an authority all the wihle not knowing what's happening in your own backyard.

Brazil's only congressman had to leave the country because of the severity of the death threats that he has received and it has been confirmed he would not be coming back because he fears for his life.

"For the future of this cause, I need to be alive," Wyllys said in an interview published Thursday. "I do not want to be a martyr. I want to live."

"Wyllys told the newspaper he had been physically harassed and that he realized the gravity of the death threats against him after Marielle Franco, a lesbian Rio councilwoman and human rights advocate, was shot and killed in March 2018. After her death, Wyllys said he began traveling with a security detail."

"How will I live four years of my life in an armored car and under escort?" he asked Folha.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/25/688647...tyr-openly-gay-lawmaker-leaves-brazil

"As Dawn Ennis previously reported for Out, Grupo Gay de Bahia, which tracks queer homicides in Brazil, says such violence is at an epidemic level: In 2017, a record 387 murders of people who identified as LGBTQ+ were recorded. There were 346 as of October 2018, with 167 trans people slain last year."

https://www.out.com/news-opinion/2019...yllys-brazil-gay-congressman-violence

These are conservative estimates. They're not only murders but usually extremely brutal and torturous murders. The situation has kept worsening with the election of an open fascist and homophobe as president, but you just keep on reading your right-wing news to justify your warped reality on issues of violence.

On February 22 2019 10:37 Spitfiree wrote: I mean if the guardian writes it, then it must be true. My response falls quite well into the context, if you don't have a tunnel vision that is. Keep believing absurd claims by western media which confirm your point of view though. Also what I'm saying in no way means that Trump's administration is actually doing anything positive for the LGBT community. How did u get that idea? They are obviously trying to find ways to convert popular opinion of the public towards hatred of Iran throughout whatever means necessary, I have been saying the USA will be going to Iran for years, even before Trump, even before Syria. Iran is the only country in the Middle East that is real opposition to Israel, or in other words total domination of the USA in the region... P.S. No shit the people are scared more of society rather than the government. There is a good quote by Sartre on the topic "Hell is other people". Chances are you are gonna get wrecked by other people before u get executed by the government. The same thing that happens to non EU member countries in Eastern Europe, where it's not illegal to be gay, but you will most likely be the victim of hate crimes if you come out.

No it wasn't. You said "gay people would not even come out in Iran, as they know they'd be instantly prosecuted" despite direct evidence to the contrary. You were completely off subject and now you are being deliberately ignorant by choosing to ignore the words of people who live in Iran to try to make a counter-argument for an argument I wasn't even making. They are not saying that they are "more afraid of people than the cops", they are saying they basically don't care about the cops, it's not an issue compared to the culture. My point wasn't even to compare Brazil and Iran, it was to compare the concerns that the Trump administration have shown towards Brazil (none) in comparison to Iran, regardless of who is more violent, they are both extremely oppressive for a LGBT person, so it follows that they should condemn both, but they don't. Instead they praised the violent dictator because he's a good neoliberal puppet, a move that was even more predictable than Baal cherry-picking "leftist violence" and ignoring my post about the luckily prevented massacre by yet another far-right extremist.

Let's put things into perspective if you want to make another argument about which one is worse. I'll admit that I simply don't know. I just quoted statistics in another post for Brazil. What do we have on Iran for LGBT murders in 2017 or 2018? Can you do your part now and research this since you're the one who wanted to do this comparison to begin with? This move by the US was supposedly motivated by the hanging of one teenager a couple years ago. How does that fit into the larger picture? I couldn't find much myself.