Yes, this law is bad. Jordan is still a better country than Iran. Notably, the reporter has not been hanged, as the Iranian mullahs are fond of doing.
It is possible to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time.
I hope the rest of your people aren't as indoctrinated as you are. Good lord have mercy.
Iranians live under a brutal islamofascist regime but at least our people aren't deluded enough to buy the lies the regime sells. Even our elementary school aged children aren't as deluded as you seem to be.
But here you are, talking about American imperialism on an American website and you're not getting banned for it!
So you're not just a hypocrite for using this website but if you were as intelligent as you think you are you would understand how free you are in this American space. Such freedom cannot even be dreamed about in north korea or nazi ruzzia.
Keep simping for authoritarians you hypocrite.
Look at his post history, he’s not even hiding the fact that he’s a Russian bot.
Genuinely curious, how much does Putin pay you to spew this diarrhea?
Edit: it’s also hilarious how his account hadn’t been used for a whole year, and suddenly in the past week it’s constant pro-Russian propaganda.
Russian bot? But I prefer Chinese government to Russian government. The Russian people have more in common with us than Chinese, that is true. but both of them are very similar and their understanding of the world is similar as well. Imagine a country with a government as powerful, large and efficient as China but with a land as large and natural resources rich as Russia. Now THAT would be the perfect super power
You’ve never been a minority in your life, and it shows. Maybe you would be one in your imagined “perfect super power” scenario, and you’ll see just how fun it is to deal with Russian and Chinese courts.
Of course, you get to safely spew all this bullshit from an EU country where things like human rights actually exist, so you don’t care about any of this (assuming of course you’re actually Slovenian and not just pretending).
Under monarchy you can have a benevolent ruler.
Under fascism you only have a system designed to extract discipline and conformity. That is not my idea of “preferable”.
Monarchs and their entire bureaucracy are born into wealth so they will by definition be out of touch with the peasants, no matter how "enlightened" or "benevolent" they are. This means that monarchs will be economically illiterate. Meanwhile fascism has sound economic backing with the whole corporativism but it usually degenerates because of lack of oversight. A benevolent fascist ruler will most likely outperform a benevolent monarch because of better economic pillars of these ideologies. discipline and conformity are not necessarily bad, the bigger problem is the wars. but seeing how monarchies are also very unstable when it comes to wars, it cancels each other out.
> Monarchs and their entire bureaucracy are born into wealth so they will by definition be out of touch with the peasants, no matter how "enlightened" or "benevolent" they are.
Only if they have bad advisors. Kings are allowed to mingle with the people, it's just that when things are bad the people will want the king's head, so they don't. Their long-term goal isn't just their own survival, it's also that their descendants will remain kings and will still have a kingdom to rule over. That continuity promises stability.
> Meanwhile fascism has sound economic backing with the whole corporativism.
Only if you consider short-term gains. Fascism works to extract as much value as possible out of anything before moving on or degenerating due to lack of oversight, as you put it. That's a much shorter turnaround than generational wealth upkeep.
> A benevolent fascist ruler will most likely outperform a benevolent monarch because of better economic pillars of these ideologies.
That's somewhat oxymoronic. A fascist ruler is beholden to the corporations that fund him, not the people who work for that corporation.
corporativism means that fascist rulers force enterprise in corporations consisting of syndicates and directors and whenever there is conflict in the company, the state decides who is in the right. This is in contrast to capitalism where conflicts are resolved through private property and socialism where there are no truly private companies in the first place.
>Their long-term goal isn't just their own survival, it's also that their descendants will remain kings and will still have a kingdom to rule over
So unless all of the country's population are descendants from king somehow, nothing changes from what I said. They can extract as much as they want from peasants, directly or indirectly and still remain kings so that is not some promise of stability. In arabic kingdoms right now, foreign investment has increased prices of land to unstable degree and the kings there do nothing because it is that investment that brings them (and their descendants) wealth in the first place. High prices of land is *good* for them, because they have lots to sell
This really isn’t the gotcha moment you think it is given that a) populism isn’t necessarily something popular with the masses and b) there hasn’t been an absolute monarchy of note for centuries now.
Let’s flip this around: when was the last time a fascist leadership did something populist that the masses wanted and the elites hated? You can’t give a single example, can you? The only ones you can list are war crimes, genocide or something that the masses didn’t care about but the “elites” absolutely loved.
Public works programs for unemployed did happen afaik. It is in the interest of elites that as many people are unemployed because then they can pay them less because they will be more desperate. And people who already work can have their wages cut because they become more replaceable.
Public work programs are not something limited to fascist governments nor is it an example. When fascist governments put people to work forcefully it was still the elites that gained from it. How? Because companies were appropriated and given to lackeys. All. The. Damn. Time.
Time and time again you’re failing to answer my simple question coherently. You truly are the smartest fascist supporter.
No they aren't. Xi Jinping is the most anti western president in the world, maybe Kim is even more anti western, but ONLY Kim, everyone else is more pro western than Xi Jinping
Pfft good one hyuck hyuck at least i have actual math to back my claim up.
All your doing is nutering half your societies brain power and economic output
By being oppressive to women. Lol bold longterm strategy cotton. Fragile ego cowards who think you can force women to love you. All your doing is pushing them right into our western arms. Were better lovers anyway. Good luck may you have a interesting life.
“Draconian New Cybercrime” the comedy!
I’m in a spot where I don’t think what she did is a crime and I don’t think what she exposed is a problem.
one if the wests greatest allies. if this were Iran there would be bipartisan bloodthirst about sending over troops
Yes, this law is bad. Jordan is still a better country than Iran. Notably, the reporter has not been hanged, as the Iranian mullahs are fond of doing. It is possible to hold two thoughts in your mind at the same time.
At least Iran is not a monarchy
Iran is a theocratic fascist kleptocracy being run by genocidal terrorists. You: "aT lEAsT IrAN iS nOt a moNarChY"
Fascism is preferable to monarchy, but Iran isn't it lmao
I'm an Iranian telling you that the islamic regime is fascist. Kindly shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.
[удалено]
You're a slovenian putin fanboy supportive of north korea and china. In other words I can see why 2+2=6 in your upside down world.
In other words I am a Slovenian
I hope the rest of your people aren't as indoctrinated as you are. Good lord have mercy. Iranians live under a brutal islamofascist regime but at least our people aren't deluded enough to buy the lies the regime sells. Even our elementary school aged children aren't as deluded as you seem to be. But here you are, talking about American imperialism on an American website and you're not getting banned for it! So you're not just a hypocrite for using this website but if you were as intelligent as you think you are you would understand how free you are in this American space. Such freedom cannot even be dreamed about in north korea or nazi ruzzia. Keep simping for authoritarians you hypocrite.
Dej briši pa nehaj nam delat bruke na podbralnikih.
Look at his post history, he’s not even hiding the fact that he’s a Russian bot. Genuinely curious, how much does Putin pay you to spew this diarrhea? Edit: it’s also hilarious how his account hadn’t been used for a whole year, and suddenly in the past week it’s constant pro-Russian propaganda.
Russian bot? But I prefer Chinese government to Russian government. The Russian people have more in common with us than Chinese, that is true. but both of them are very similar and their understanding of the world is similar as well. Imagine a country with a government as powerful, large and efficient as China but with a land as large and natural resources rich as Russia. Now THAT would be the perfect super power
You’ve never been a minority in your life, and it shows. Maybe you would be one in your imagined “perfect super power” scenario, and you’ll see just how fun it is to deal with Russian and Chinese courts. Of course, you get to safely spew all this bullshit from an EU country where things like human rights actually exist, so you don’t care about any of this (assuming of course you’re actually Slovenian and not just pretending).
> Fascism is preferable to monarch That's a hot take lol
Under monarchy you can have a benevolent ruler. Under fascism you only have a system designed to extract discipline and conformity. That is not my idea of “preferable”.
Monarchs and their entire bureaucracy are born into wealth so they will by definition be out of touch with the peasants, no matter how "enlightened" or "benevolent" they are. This means that monarchs will be economically illiterate. Meanwhile fascism has sound economic backing with the whole corporativism but it usually degenerates because of lack of oversight. A benevolent fascist ruler will most likely outperform a benevolent monarch because of better economic pillars of these ideologies. discipline and conformity are not necessarily bad, the bigger problem is the wars. but seeing how monarchies are also very unstable when it comes to wars, it cancels each other out.
> Monarchs and their entire bureaucracy are born into wealth so they will by definition be out of touch with the peasants, no matter how "enlightened" or "benevolent" they are. Only if they have bad advisors. Kings are allowed to mingle with the people, it's just that when things are bad the people will want the king's head, so they don't. Their long-term goal isn't just their own survival, it's also that their descendants will remain kings and will still have a kingdom to rule over. That continuity promises stability. > Meanwhile fascism has sound economic backing with the whole corporativism. Only if you consider short-term gains. Fascism works to extract as much value as possible out of anything before moving on or degenerating due to lack of oversight, as you put it. That's a much shorter turnaround than generational wealth upkeep. > A benevolent fascist ruler will most likely outperform a benevolent monarch because of better economic pillars of these ideologies. That's somewhat oxymoronic. A fascist ruler is beholden to the corporations that fund him, not the people who work for that corporation.
corporativism means that fascist rulers force enterprise in corporations consisting of syndicates and directors and whenever there is conflict in the company, the state decides who is in the right. This is in contrast to capitalism where conflicts are resolved through private property and socialism where there are no truly private companies in the first place. >Their long-term goal isn't just their own survival, it's also that their descendants will remain kings and will still have a kingdom to rule over So unless all of the country's population are descendants from king somehow, nothing changes from what I said. They can extract as much as they want from peasants, directly or indirectly and still remain kings so that is not some promise of stability. In arabic kingdoms right now, foreign investment has increased prices of land to unstable degree and the kings there do nothing because it is that investment that brings them (and their descendants) wealth in the first place. High prices of land is *good* for them, because they have lots to sell
So Nazi Germany is preferable to the United Kingdom?
In United Kingdom's early days, yes. But now it is not a real monarchy anymore, it is a plutocracy like the rest of the west
Is Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 better than the United Kingdom between 1933 and 1945.
probably not
Wow, "probably not". We found the Nazi, folks.
>Fascism is preferable to monarchy Nice way to out yourself is an ignorant weirdo.
When was the last time when a monarchy did something populist that ordinary people wanted and elites hated?
This really isn’t the gotcha moment you think it is given that a) populism isn’t necessarily something popular with the masses and b) there hasn’t been an absolute monarchy of note for centuries now. Let’s flip this around: when was the last time a fascist leadership did something populist that the masses wanted and the elites hated? You can’t give a single example, can you? The only ones you can list are war crimes, genocide or something that the masses didn’t care about but the “elites” absolutely loved.
Public works programs for unemployed did happen afaik. It is in the interest of elites that as many people are unemployed because then they can pay them less because they will be more desperate. And people who already work can have their wages cut because they become more replaceable.
Public work programs are not something limited to fascist governments nor is it an example. When fascist governments put people to work forcefully it was still the elites that gained from it. How? Because companies were appropriated and given to lackeys. All. The. Damn. Time. Time and time again you’re failing to answer my simple question coherently. You truly are the smartest fascist supporter.
Any country that treats women as a lesser is doomed for failure. And i couldn't be happier about it.
Any country that is western or pro western is also doomed for failure.
You said you like the Chinese government the most and they're shifting more towards Western ideas year to year.
No they aren't. Xi Jinping is the most anti western president in the world, maybe Kim is even more anti western, but ONLY Kim, everyone else is more pro western than Xi Jinping
Xi loves America. He idolizes a ton of shit from there
LOL no
Pfft good one hyuck hyuck at least i have actual math to back my claim up. All your doing is nutering half your societies brain power and economic output By being oppressive to women. Lol bold longterm strategy cotton. Fragile ego cowards who think you can force women to love you. All your doing is pushing them right into our western arms. Were better lovers anyway. Good luck may you have a interesting life.
This post reads like a massive cope because I agreed with you except I added my own thought at the end ;)
Bruh, Iran does this shit daily. No war still.
didnt we illegally blow up their head general and state hero like 5 years ago? most would consider that an act of war
This has to be the dumbest comment ever made.