[the_af]

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars.

When I'm arguing against wishing for collapse "from the comfort of our countries", where do you read that I'm talking to Iranians? I'm talking to HN commenters who are not from Iran. I'm obviously not arguing with pinkbeanz since he/she is from Iran.

Try arguing in good faith, unless you want this to devolve into a flamewar. You already tried something like this in another comment: please stop.

[rolenthedeep]

Reframing your argument to avoid accepting new information is not arguing in "good faith"

You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.

[the_af]

What new information?

> You're in the wrong here, it's time to walk away.

Nope. The people who are in the wrong are the coach warriors who want to see collapse but aren't unwilling to go fight for it, making arguments from the safety of their countries.

[Zetobal]

Your weapon of choice also seems to be the keyboard.

[the_af]

How so? I'm not calling for any specific course of action, I'm just saying "be thoughtful before arguing in favor of collapse", especially if you don't live in the country under discussion.

My "weapon of choice" is calling for restraint before violence.

[kaba0]

Inaction is a political choice, you have already taken a side by doing that.

[TeMPOraL]

That's the go-to lie of people trying to start civil wars and scare people into taking their side. "If you're not with us, you're against us". "Not taking side is just supporting status quo, which is taking a side". War is peace.

[aliqot]

> Please assume good faith and don't incite flamewars.

please don't leap behind this when someone engages your comment in an equal tone. mom has nothing to do with this conversation.

[the_af]

What was my tone? "Do not so recklessly wish collapse onto others", is that the tone you object to? I would have thought everyone agreed on this.

[wizofaus]

It reads to me like others are talking regime collapse, whereas you're concerned about societal-level collapse. I'd agree few with good intentions would wish for the latter. Regimes can and do collapse without it meaning anything like the level of nationwide chaos and misery you seem to have in mind.

[the_af]

Yes, I think that's what may be happening, at least for the people arguing with me in good faith.

In that case, let me be explicit that I'm pessimistic about the current government of Iran (a dictatorship which I'm not in any way in favor of) collapsing without a lot of destruction and bloodshed, and that I do not wish this destruction on the families currently living there. I also fear that if this collapse leaves a power vacuum, something like -- similar, not exactly the same -- ISIS could rise in its place. I'm very pessimistic about this, and so I'm wary of wishing for collapse.

[TeMPOraL]

I interpreted GP as talking specifically about induced regime collapse, specifically one induced externally. As in, not about the regime itself slowly decaying into a more benign form, but rather about attempts to remove it by force.

Historically, I can't think of a single case of a regime being destroyed through revolution or invasion that didn't end in at least partial societal collapse and a drastic increase in deaths and suffering for a generation or more.

[wizofaus]

The Nazi Reich? Arguably it brought about its own downfall via its misguided attempts at "invasion" - at any rate it was about as violent and sudden an end to a regime as you could ask for. But history is full of coups d'etat that didn't necessarily negatively impact the greater population all that directly.

[TeMPOraL]

You're right, Nazi Reich is a valid counterexample to my assertion. It was destroyed by external forces, though as you say it was totally self-inflicted, and a lot of people living under it suffered greatly in the process, but the situation for them improved very quickly.

Per my understanding of history, that last part was an anomaly in several ways. This being a world war is one way, of course, but another factor was that the hot war between the Allies and the Axis transformed, after the Axis was defeated, into a cold war between members of the Allies. Both sides of this new conflict considered it critical to capture and stabilize the very territories they helped liberate from the Nazis. This wasn't a half-hearted "nation-building" program like we've been seeing in more recent times - both the US and USSR committed tremendous amounts of resources to get Europe back into shape, because this was still a war - arguably the same war, just going through a cool-down period - and both sides expected it to go hot eventually.

Also, while Germany survived the death of Nazi regime quite well, the Cold War is also known for US and USSR sponsoring and orchestrating coups and regime changes all around the world, and (AFAIK) those cases all ended badly for the locals.

In some sense, it might be that World War II was itself an anomaly - I can't think of any other war that ended with both the winners and the losers coming out better off. But it's also worth remembering that WWII itself was in large part a consequence of the societal collapse Germany underwent after losing WWI. And the subsequent Cold War was in large part a consequence of societal collapse caused by bloody revolutions in Russia and elsewhere around the start of the 20th century.

The way I see it, we have one special case of regime collapse making everyone better off almost immediately, but even that one is surrounded and infused with countless cases of regime changes that caused generations to suffer.

[mistermann]

> Try arguing in good faith

Dropping the use of reality distorting memes like this would be a good place to start, assuming you're actually serious.

[the_af]

What's the reality distortion meme?

[mistermann]

"good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective.

There is a whole class of reality distorting phrases like this in Western culture[1], this sort of thing has always been with us but seems to have taken on much more causal significance with the rise of the internet.

[1] Possibly related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

[the_af]

Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of.

> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term

HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):

> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."

So snark replies are out.

> "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."

So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.

> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence. Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me. If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.

> "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes."

Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).

Need I go on?

[mistermann]

> Instead of replying indirectly, please address what I'm saying: what's the actual "reality distortion meme" I'm deploying here? Be upfront and accuse me of something I can defend myself of.

"good faith" - it is a highly subjective term, but it is typically used as if it is objective.

I will copy/paste this every time you represent that I have not disclosed the term - to others that sort of thing might be annoying, but to me it is fun!

>> "good faith" - it is a highly subjective term

> HN defines is pretty clearly (note there's more, I'm just quoting some parts):

>>>>> "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes."

> So snark replies are out.

a) People break the guidelines all the time.

b) "Be kind. Don't be snarky...." - this text stands on its own in the guidelines and is not given as a definition of good faith.

c) The only reference to "good faith" in the guidelines is this (which you are in violation of, as am I (and I have strong ideological reasons for my non-compliance)): "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

d) There is an important distinction between the definition of a term, and each individual's classification of behavior as being a valid instance of the term.

> So calling someone an Iranian secret police agent is out.

Agreed, thus I have not done that.

> So instead of cross-examining me or trying to "catch me" somehow, address the fact I'm calling for nonviolence and restraint, and that I claim recent experience in the Middle East shows that regional collapse leads to the rise of fundamentalist groups and a general rise of unchecked violence.

I acknowledge that you believe this, and that there is surely some truth to it.

I will not refrain from criticizing your claims though.

> Assume good faith; assume I want the common good. If I made a mistake, reason with me.

I will assume what I want to, or nothing at all.

My reasoning is above.

> If you are an Iranian, don't withhold this information from me until we are 10-levels into a nested discussion.

I am not Iranian.

> Self-explanatory. I'd say name-dropping "reality distortion memes" is one such internet trope (one, to be frank, I still don't understand because you haven't explained).

"Good/bad faith" is also a (much more) popular trope, one that I believe is also much more dangerous.

> Need I go on?

No, but you are more than welcome to.

[SuoDuanDao]

>please assume good faith ... >Try arguing in good faith