[spiderfarmer]

Iran doesn’t have to do anything, really. The Hormuz blockade is entirely on the moronic US, their feeble leader as well as their utterly corrupt and incompetent politicians.

A toxic mix of staggering arrogance, moral bankruptcy, a lack of strategic thinking, non-existing historical awareness and a desperate need to divert attention because of the Epstein files.

Try debating a MAGA supporter. The stupidity is astounding.

[alsetmusic]

> because of the Epstein files.

> The stupidity is astounding.

They "released the files" and handed out binders of Epstein documents to influencers. There was a ton of posting as though something monumental had happened. They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information.

That's how much the admin respects the intelligence of its base and that's how much its loudest supporters think things through.

[watwut]

> They were entirely comprised pre-existing publicly released information.

This is not true. This is in fact straightforwardly false.

[sillyfluke]

You and the parent may be talking about two different events.

There was an initial release of "binders" to known rightwing influencers in a choreographed photo event. It was a predominantly bullshit release that pissed off the conspiratorial wing of MAGA and the Epstein Republicans (Massie et al). This happened in early 2025.

The blowback from this event resulted in Congress passing the Epstein Transparency Act in Nov. 2025.

The biggest dump of files came after this (tho congressmen are claiming most files are still unreleased) , which is what you might be referring to.

But feel free to argue your point either way.

[spiderfarmer]

Most have not been released and they didn’t even pay lip service to the ‘unredacted’ requirement.

The truth will come out eventually. When the US finally realizes how cringe their awful leader is. Like when you finally realize how your friends thought about your partner after the breakup.

[_DeadFred_]

You'd think the Epstein class would get along better with Iran, seeing as you can get 'temporary' marriages to underage girls in Iran. (google 'iran child bride' and 'iran temporary marriage').

[bannable]

Why would anyone post this comment?

[_DeadFred_]

To highlight that both sides are horrific when it comes to the topic being discussed and that both sides need leadership to be changed?

Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?

[cnd78A]

"both sides are horrific" is convenient, but only one keep invading and bombing others since decades

[bigyabai]

On the hierarchy of disagreement, attacking the character of either side is the lowest form of intelligent commentary you can make: https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

> Do you not think horrible behaviors should be highlighted/called out/brought up? Or just that US leadership Epstein connections should be?

If non-sequiturs are your best argument, then yes, you you have nothing to contribute by participating in good-faith speculation. Iranian child marriages do not reframe the "Tail that Wags the Dog" scenario in Washington. It's textbook whataboutism that you failed to elevate into meaningful commentary, making you look suspiciously disengaged.

[cnd78A]

Iranian child marriages do not reframe

Israel too to be fair "They're 15, Married With Children: Inside an Israeli Hasidic Cult's Code of Silence" (the gov and the population knows it, but it's ok) : https://archive.is/v9Amc#selection-699.0-699.83

[_DeadFred_]

I'm not seeing where they rent out their children via temporarily marriages as the Shia mullahs in Iran have given religious sanction/approval/doctrine of or like the similar behaviors highlighted in the Epstein files. Can you help me find that bit that relates to what I was speaking to?

That said allowing child brides is horrific, I agree. Especially when it seems to be accepted by the highest levels of a religion or even worse when it's practiced by a religions leaders.

[_DeadFred_]

I simply stated "You'd think these Epstein file guys would be on better terms with a country whose religious and political leaders sanctify that kind of behavior, not going to war with them.". Seems like a reasonable comment. They are all awful people.

Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names. If I called OP names your link would fit. Calling out a horrific regime that murders their people and rents out children under the sanction of their religious leaders is not that.

Calling the person you are in a discussion with names = bad. Call the subject of the discussion bad, when they legitimately are horrific, is normal discussion. Trump is awful. The Islamic Republic is awful. Both of those are normal and acceptable things to state in a discussion. You DeadFred are a <xyz negative statement>, not normal or acceptable.

However Hacker New's ACTUAL guidelines state reguarding comments "Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." which your post seems to explicitly violate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[tremon]

Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names

Only if you don't care to read past bullet point 1. If you had cared enough to read at least one paragraph further, you would have found:

> DH1. Ad Hominem.

> An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. [..] It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though

[adjejmxbdjdn]

Iran didn’t start a war to distract from the Epstein files (I don’t agree the U.S. did that either, but you have implicitly accepted the premise, and since you have, it should be obvious that in the context of this war, the relevant information is whether the pedophilia loving govt started a war to distract its public or not, not whether either govt is pedophilia loving).

[TitaRusell]

Remember when MAGA was about isolationism?

[spiderfarmer]

Where did they manufacture those hats?

[tdeck]

I can see how this is confusing. The American foreign policy establishment's consensus definition of "isolationism" is something like "not invading or planning to invade other countries", it doesn't mean not trading with them.

For Americans, not bombing something in Asia at least every couple of months is considered an isolationist tendency. And of course Central and South America don't even count, that's our "back yard" after all.