@MaryTracy what makes you so confident to make such blank statement about what iranians (as a whole) are saying and the complexity they are referring to, ( and please dont forget your name is Mary Tracy, not a mohammad or fatima).
Quantitative analysis has taken over every discipline in the social sciences, and destroyed it.
Students of politics, psychology, even history, are asked to quantify their findings, by attaching some type of number to them (e.g., some inanity like '63% of women prefer men with a sense of humour').
It is made to look intelligent by calculating regression coefficients, plotting graphs, coming up with formulae using mutliple betas.
This has been deliberately - and successfully - pushed by American state-backed institutions - CCF, Ford Foundation, RAND, etc. [ref, Saunders (1999), Amadae (2003), Solovey (2013)] to counter theoretical social sciences, which were seen as dangers to capitalism and liberal democracy.
Imbecilic empiricism rules academia now.
As the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran enters its third day, we speak with scholar and author Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi about what threatens to become a regional conflagration in the Middle East.
Though Ghamari-Tabrizi is a longtime critic of the Iranian government, having himself spent three years on death row in Iran's notorious Evin Prison, he says, "I can't find any reason to celebrate the assassination of the Iranian supreme leader because I think it's part of a package ... It's also part of the killing of Iranian innocent people."
"This is a war that is not in the interest of the United States and is only fulfills and realizes the desires of a regime in Israel that is promoting forever wars in the region," he adds.
Throw back to the time when, during a job interview, a faculty member at an institution (known for its leftist climate) asked if I was implying that he should get paid the same as his junior colleagues.
my not-so-hot take is that criticizing any system of exploitation and oppression in psychology (racism, sexism, and yes even colonialism) is normalized except for capitalism.
Progressives outside Iran "should be able to hold two truths at the same time," says Iranian scholar Arang Keshavarzian.
"We have to acknowledge and listen to the large number of Iranians from all different segments and sectors of society that … have been engaging in various forms of protest," he says. "But a U.S. intervention is going to be counterproductive to all of this."
Watch the full segment: https://t.co/VRfRoUtz9y
@drghadasasa@Helyeh_Doutaghi@mahdinikkhah ghada, when palestinians rose on oct 7, and when peole were like “but hamas”, we maintained that palestinians should decide how to resist their occupier by all means nevessary. we deferred to palestinian comrades eveb if we disagreed.
@drghadasasa@Helyeh_Doutaghi@mahdinikkhah some of us disagreed with Hamas but decided that palestinians know their opressor best. why dont iranians get the same treatment? why cant you listen to iranian comrades? why do you think you know better than a person who is living there? why cant you be humble in what you know?
At least 26 billionaires have spent millions trying to stop Mamdani from becoming New York’s next mayor on Tuesday. More surprising are the two billionaires who stepped up to support the frontrunner.
Read more: https://t.co/F3UNTagQF6
this is one of the most naive analysis i have ever heard about islamic republic and its support for palestine. what is happening to the campists? are they out of their mind?
4) on Iran and its support for Palestinians being for its own national interests. OK. How did Iran support for Hamas and Hizb help Iranian national interests? Please show us and explain to us. Iran has been under savage Western sanctions and facing Israeli conspiracies for decades all because of its support for Palestinian and Arab resistance to Israel. It even armed the PFLP, which is a communist non-Shiite organization. How did that help Iran? If Iran were to end its support for Arab resistance, all sanctions would have been lifted immediately—unless you believe that the West’s problem with the Iranian regime (or with the Syrian regime) is about human rights. If you believe that (and it is possible you believe that) you need to explain how the West has absolutely no problem whatever with Gulf regimes, unless like many Arab intellectuals you believe that they represent virtuous democracies because they are rich dispensing funds to control Arab culture and academia. And if Iran helped Palestinians (and you mock their support for Palestinians when no Arab government EVER in its history—not even the government of Nasser who I admire—helped them as Iran has helped them militarily) for its own interests, why didn’t Arab regime help Palestinians just like Iran? If this would help their national interests. It is hard for people in the West to understand that Khomeini truly planted a doctrine which centers on Palestine and that those who follow Khomeini believe in that doctrine and for that Iran helps the Palestinians. And if this doctrine were to be abandoned, Iran would not be helping the Palestinians and you probably believe that Palestinians would be better off—relying instead on verbal Arab declarations and international legitimacy.
Courage and conviction: Parastou Ahmadi, an Iranian singer inside Iran, held an online concert on YouTube in which she refused to wear hijab or abide by the newly reinforced Islamic dress code.
🫡