#changemyview

CMV: Reddit has a blind spot about Iran. A significant portion of Reddit, especially on the larger political and news subs defaults to a framing where the US is the aggressor and Iran is a victim of imperialism. I understand the impulse. The Iraq War was a catastrophe, US foreign policy in the region has a genuinely ugly history, and skepticism of American military action is healthy etc. But I think the pendulum has swung into something intellectually lazy that I will try to explain in a few points: 1.The Iranian government is a designated state sponsor of terrorism by most Western governments, and this isn't just US propaganda. It funds and arms Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and various militias in Iraq and Syria. These groups have killed civilians (including a lot of Muslim civilians) for decades. Dismissing this as "the US says so" ignores that many regional actors, including Arab states, say the same. 2.Iranians themselves have been protesting this regime repeatedly: 2009, 2017, 2019, 2022. Women have died over hijab laws. Dissidents are executed. When Redditors treat any criticism of the Iranian government as warmongering, they're effectively siding with the regime against the Iranian people who are risking their lives to oppose it. 3."Anti-intervention" has become a thought-terminating cliché. You can oppose a specific US military action without laundering the target government's image. But I see comments routinely framing the IRGC as just a normal military, glossing over the assassination of dissidents on foreign soil, or treating Houthi attacks on civilian shipping as legitimate resistance. The same users who (correctly) call out Saudi Arabia, Russia, or China for human rights abuses go quiet or defensive about Iran the moment the US is involved. That selective outrage is the tell, the position is reactive to America, not grounded in any consistent principle. What would change my view: \-Evidence that the sentiment I'm describing isn't actually widespread on Reddit and I'm cherry-picking I guess. \-A principled argument for why opposition to the US intervention requires softening criticism of the target regime (rather than them being separable). \-A case that Iran's regional behavior is meaningfully different from how I've characterized it. \-I'm not arguing for war. I'm arguing that "the US is bad here" and "the Iranian regime is also bad" are both true, and Reddit has trouble holding both thoughts at once.

CMV: If God is all-knowing and has a fixed plan, then free will is impossible under that version of religion" If God already knows every choice you will ever make, then there is only one way things can go. You could never have done anything else because you already knew what would happen. And if God has a set plan, then your actions were set in stone before you were even born. Think of it like a writer making up a character. That character may think they are making choices, but they are really just following a script. I think the same reasoning applies here, and that there is no free will under god or under any other reglion. I want to be clear that I'm not trying to attack religion in general. This argument is about a specific version of God that knows everything and has a plan for everything. I believe that those two things together make free will almost impossible. If God knows every decision you will ever make before you make it, then there is only one way things can go. You couldn't have done anything differently because God already knew what would happen. And if God has a set plan, then your actions were pretty much set in stone before you were even born. Picture a godlike being who makes a fake person and speeds up their timeline. In just a few minutes, he watches their whole life unfold and writes down everything they do. That person might think they are making decisions from inside the simulation. But they aren't. They are just following a script that they didn't know about. To disagree with me, I think you have to do one of these things. Either argue that God is not truly all-knowing, or argue that the plan is not actually fixed, or redefine free will in a way that makes it compatible with having no real alternatives. That last option is where compatibilism comes in, but I am honestly not sure it solves the problem so much as it just changes the definition. I think you have to do one of these things to disagree with me. You can either say that God doesn't really know everything, or you can say that the plan isn't really set in stone, or you can change the definition of free will so that it works with having no real choices. That last option is where compatibilism comes in, but I'm not sure it really solves the problem.

CMV: At jobs that don't interact with the public, your peircings shouldn't matter during their interviews Who should care how someone looks, if the job doesn't see or interact with the public. (besides hygiene) Removed peircings before a job interview, I have 8 years experience doing the same type of job. On my way out I answered a text, they might have thought I left than I hear "shame he has peircings" (I took all of them out and left them at home) I would understand a face tattoo but not something that can be removed. Or if the job used machinery that could rip them out. It doesn't impact your performance nor does it offend the customer who will never see you.

CMV: The US-Iran ceasefire represents a strategic victory for Iran Many of you may have a quick 'off the bat' response to this CMV but I want to try and do this correctly. What I am trying to test is my view that Iran, despite the pounding they have taken, have emerged as the strategic victors of the conflict. To that end we need to set out what the strategic aims of the two parties are and, as the conflict comes to an end, decide who's aims have been best met. Therefore: America and Israel - Their broad aim was to end the threat Iran posed to their interests. The method of doing this was to kill Iran's leadership and attack their military capabilities both conventional and unconventional. They hoped that this action will result in a more compliant Iranian leadership who they can control or, at least, effectively influence in support of their aims. Today the threat posed by Iran is largely unchanged, they have demonstrated an ability, either directly or through proxies, to attack and harm their regional neighbours and Israel. Far more significantly Iran has proven their ability to close the Straits of Hormuz (and America's and Israel's inability to prevent that closure). Finally there is Iran's nuclear programme, whilst we don't know the details there is little to suggest that this programme has been fully stopped by America's and Israel's attacks. Meanwhile the Iranian leadership has been replaced but, so far, there is no indication that they will be more compliant than the previous regime, they may even be emboldened by the successful closure of the Straits of Hormuz and the economic affect that had on the world. Iran - Iran's aim will have been to retain power in Iran and maintain their political levers on the world stage. As of today there is no indication the regime has lost any authority within Iran, it is even possible that collateral damage caused to Iran by Israel and America's attacks has increased their control. Iran's political levers have also been strengthened, their proxies have supported them throughout the conflict, they have elicited a degree of sympathy from international observers who oppose America and Israel's attacks and their threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has gone from theoretical to proven. Lastly, there is no indication that they will accept any new demands or restrictions on their activities (although that could still change as negotiations take place). Based on what I have written above it seems to me pretty clear that this conflict has resulted in a strategic victory got Iran. What I'm interested in is compelling evidence that either Iran's strategic goals have been harmed or that America or Israel have achieved a strategic outcome that I have not considered and would tip the scale over to 'win' for them. Edit: I've awarded a Delta because it's too early to know for sure that this is a strategic victory for Iran. I still maintain however, if nothing changes, it will be a strategic victory.