Iranian Chill Thread

[sha ah]

Forcing people to do things they don't want to do will never work in the long run. People will either leave in mass (brain drain) or rebel in one way or another. If you want people to do something, there are generally two options, the carrot or the stick approach.

You can try to force people to do what you want or you can offer people incentives to do what you want. Brute force can yield results, but you have to spent significant amounts on law enforcement and even then you will likely only get mixed results.

Also using brute force creates an atmosphere of mistrust in society and people become generally resentful towards the authorities, feeling disenfranchised and losing faith in the government. On the other hand, If you create incentives for people to do what you want, it generally yields better results and you don't have to enforce anything, everyone is happy.

, women started to be more liberal after the establishment of Gasht-e Ershad because two fucking decades had passed since the time of Islamic Revolution Committees and how they harassed people in public.

Things change, Salar. I know it's hard for you to understand this concept, but societies change. The Iranian society is nothing like what it used to be 44 years ago. That's why I said that the future leader of Iran should understand the mentality of the newer generations. Even with Gasht-e Ershad, women will become more and more liberal and anti-hijab as time passes by unless they're given the choice to choose on their own. Only then the trend may change in favor of hijab. Shawnee worded it perfectly. People don't need someone to tell them what to do, they need someone to bleed for them and defend their interests.

Turkey is a perfect example of reversing or at least stopping liberalism. Turkish women used to be way more secular and liberal before Abdullah Gul and Erdogan. My family who have been to Turkey countless times since decades ago until now tell me that Turkish people have become relatively more Islamic than they were before. I don't care about the reason, but it clearly wasn't because the Turkish government forced them to wear hijab.

I know you said you were much older than me, but I'm still old enough to remember the time when the police forcefully entered people's homes like savages to destroy and confiscate satellite dishes. Nobody does that anymore. You know why? Because now they have realized that it will never work. The issue of compulsory hijab is the same.

 

[MyNameAintJeff]

Forcing people to do things they don't want to do will never work in the long run. People will either leave in mass (brain drain) or rebel in one way or another. If you want people to do something, there are generally two options, the carrot or the stick approach.

You can try to force people to do what you want or you can offer people incentives to do what you want. Brute force can yield results, but you have to spent significant amounts on law enforcement and even then you will likely only get mixed results.

Also using brute force creates an atmosphere of mistrust in society and people become generally resentful towards the authorities, feeling disenfranchised and losing faith in the government. On the other hand, If you create incentives for people to do what you want, it generally yields better results and you don't have to enforce anything, everyone is happy.

If the statement "forcing people to do what they don't want will not work" were correct, having any form of laws would be pointless.
Few people like paying taxes, yet taxes work
Many people want to break traffic laws, yet traffic laws generally work.
The reason we see so much controversy over hijab laws is because there is a well-funded and well-supported force trying to undermine these laws, and most of it comes from outside Iran.
That is why the hijab law was mostly uncontroversial before the early 2000s. It became controversial after foreign forces started undermining it through satellite TV and internet.
I have a question for members who want the hijab law to be removed: What do you think is going to happen if removing headscarves were legalized? Do you think liberals will say "thank you" and just go home.
No they wont. Not once in the history of the world have liberals been content and stopped at a concession. After headscarves they will ask to remove their pants, then tops, then bare breasts...
They will not stop until grown men can go into playgrounds and show their d**ks to kids.
In the end we will have to fight for a trench
And I prefer we fight for the first trench

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

If the statement "forcing people to do what they don't want will not work" were correct, having any form of laws would be pointless.
Few people like paying taxes, yet taxes work
Many people want to break traffic laws, yet traffic laws generally work.
The reason we see so much controversy over hijab laws is because there is a well-funded and well-supported force trying to undermine these laws, and most of it comes from outside Iran.
That is why the hijab law was mostly uncontroversial before the early 2000s. It became controversial after foreign forces started undermining it through satellite TV and internet.
I have a question for members who want the hijab law to be removed: What do you think is going to happen if removing headscarves were legalized? Do you think liberals will say "thank you" and just go home.
No they wont. Not once in the history of the world have liberals been content and stopped at a concession. After headscarves they will ask to remove their pants, then tops, then bare breasts...
They will not stop until grown men can go into playgrounds and show their d**ks to kids.
In the end we will have to fight for a trench
And I prefer we fight for the first trench

The thing that you're not mentioning is that majority of Iranian people are against compulsory hijab.
As a man I would be irritated to constantly wear a cap on my head, I want the air and sun to reach my head, especially if it's hot. So I think this jewish influenced and promoted forced hijab should be banned immediately because it's nonsense and now it's in the toolbox of the enemy.
Moralily and families should be promoted and protected, but hijab is a separate topic. Laws that do not allow to walk naked around should stay ofcourse.

 

[MyNameAintJeff]

The thing that you're not mentioning is that majority of Iranian people are against compulsory hijab.
As a man I would be irritated to constantly wear a cap on my head, I want the air and sun to reach my head, especially if it's hot. So I think this jewish influenced and promoted forced hijab should be banned immediately because it's nonsense and now it's in the toolbox of the enemy.
Moralily and families should be promoted and protected, but hijab is a separate topic. Laws that do not allow to walk naked around should stay ofcourse.

On what basis are you going to allow taking off the hijab but not the rest of clothing?
If the logic is "it's my body and I can wear whatever I want" then nudity should be allowed as well.
The same people who pushed the anti-hijab movement will also start a pro-nudity movement.
And if the police tries to stop public nudity we will have the same controversies we have today.
If they push us back from one of our red lines they will push us back from the rest of it as well.

 

[jauk]

On what basis are you going to allow taking off the hijab but not the rest of clothing?
If the logic is "it's my body and I can wear whatever I want" then nudity should be allowed as well.
The same people who pushed the anti-hijab movement will also start a pro-nudity movement.
And if the police tries to stop public nudity we will have the same controversies we have today.
If they push us back from one of our red lines they will push us back from the rest of it as well.

Exactly. The anti hijab arguments are fatuous. And slippery slopes. EVERY country on the planet has imposed a dress code by law. Mostly under public lewdness laws. So the arguments against hijab have to be far better than ‘majority wants this and that’ or ‘I’m uncomfortable’.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

On what basis are you going to allow taking off the hijab but not the rest of clothing?
If the logic is "it's my body and I can wear whatever I want" then nudity should be allowed as well.
The same people who pushed the anti-hijab movement will also start a pro-nudity movement.
And if the police tries to stop public nudity we will have the same controversies we have today.
If they push us back from one of our red lines they will push us back from the rest of it as well.

Clothing laws vary considerably around the world. In most countries, there are no laws which prescribe what clothing is required to be worn. However, the community standards of clothing are set indirectly by way of prosecution of those who wear something that is not socially approved. Those people who wear insufficient clothing can be prosecuted in many countries under various offences termed indecent exposure, public indecency, nudity or other descriptions. Generally, these offences do not themselves define what is and what is not acceptable clothing to constitute the offence, and leave it to a judge to determine in each case.

It's possible to create a "(regional) standard" to what is ok/allowed and what not. Big financial fines will work and add to state revenue, not beating people or throwing them in vans. Will you dress indecent if I politely give you a 500 dollar fine for violating "family morals" or "public decency"?

Same for this stupid dog issue in Iran. Instead of heavily taxing pet holders, especially those who have dogs. It should be heavily taxed so that state earns from these stupid people. But the laws in Iran are made by very old conservative people, not creative young revolutionary and nationalist people.

 

[jauk]

Clothing laws vary considerably around the world. In most countries, there are no laws which prescribe what clothing is required to be worn. However, the community standards of clothing are set indirectly by way of prosecution of those who wear something that is not socially approved. Those people who wear insufficient clothing can be prosecuted in many countries under various offences termed indecent exposure, public indecency, nudity or other descriptions. Generally, these offences do not themselves define what is and what is not acceptable clothing to constitute the offence, and leave it to a judge to determine in each case.

It's possible to create a "(regional) standard" to what is ok/allowed and what not. Big financial fines will work and add to state revenue, not beating people or throwing them in vans. Will you dress indecent if I politely give you a 500 dollar fine for violating "family morals" or "public decency"?

Same for this stupid dog issue in Iran. Instead of heavily taxing pet holders, especially those who have dogs. It should be heavily taxed so that state earns from these stupid people. But the laws in Iran are made by very old conservative people, not creative young revolutionary and nationalist people.

I agree about the pets enforcement. I also believe the pet owners themselves are ignorant to the basics of having pets in public. Until both sides grow up there will be friction. Here on the Islands, where pets are integrated with culture and family, there is constant and deep friction between owners and non owners. In fact, most rules are bent far more in favor of non owners. So much so there are no pets signs on a vast majority of entrances for businesses small and large.

As for the rest of your argument re hijab the very length make it void and unforceable.

You are also wrong about dress code rules. There are age old and enforced rules on dress code in most societies especially the west. That tidbit alone shatters your argument in addition to its length.

At the end you are attempting to create a complex model that literally does not exist elsewhere. As such, you carry a heavy burden of proof. Your arguments, as is, don’t meet that high standard.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

I agree about the pets enforcement. I also believe the pet owners themselves are ignorant to the basics of having pets in public. Until both sides grow up there will be friction. Here on the Islands where pets are integrated with culture and family there is constant and deep friction between owners and not owners. In fact, most rules are bent far more in favor of non owners. So much so there are no pets signs on a vast majority of entrances for businesses small and large.

As for the rest of your argument re hijab the very length make it void and unforceable.

You are also wrong about dress code rules. There are age old and enforced rules on dress code in most societies especially the west. That tidbit alone shatters your argument in addition to its length.

At the end you are attempting to create a complex model that literally does not exist elsewhere. As such, you carry a heavy burden of proof. Your arguments, as is, don’t meet that high standard.

Read my post here as well to understand my vision about hijab and public decency:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/girl...-iran-shiraz-city.745432/page-2#post-13858623

 

[SalarHaqq]

On what basis are you going to allow taking off the hijab but not the rest of clothing?
If the logic is "it's my body and I can wear whatever I want" then nudity should be allowed as well.
The same people who pushed the anti-hijab movement will also start a pro-nudity movement.
And if the police tries to stop public nudity we will have the same controversies we have today.
If they push us back from one of our red lines they will push us back from the rest of it as well.

The logic of secular (ultra-)nationalists is, "the hejab rule originates from semitic lands, Iranian females in pre-Islamic times did not wear any headdress" (which is subject to debate, but let's assume it was so).

Problem with that, and this is something nationalists tend not to realize, is that the great majority of Iranians who oppose hejab, do not adhere to any form of nationalism, they are bona fide liberals. The propaganda and social engineering which made them turn against hejab in the first place has nothing nationalistic nor conservative to it, it's liberal through and through, because no holds barred liberalism and globalism defines the agenda of the hostile powers behind the dominant anti-hejab narratives encountered in Iranian society.

And so the same westernized, liberal-minded crowd is going to follow suit sheepishly when said foreign powers start promoting nudity, homosexualism, abandonment of marriage and family values, you name it. All of which are next in line should the Islamic Republic cede and lift hejab rules.

 

[925boy]

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

The logic of secular (ultra-)nationalists is, "the hejab rule originates from semitic lands, Iranian females in pre-Islamic times did not wear any headdress" (which is subject to debate, but let's assume it was so).

Problem with that, and this is something nationalists tend not to realize, is that the great majority of Iranians who oppose hejab, do not adhere to any form of nationalism, they are bona fide liberals. The propaganda and social engineering which made them turn against hejab in the first place has nothing nationalistic nor conservative to it, it's liberal through and through, because no holds barred liberalism and globalism defines the agenda of the hostile powers behind the dominant anti-hejab narratives encountered in Iranian society.

And so the same crowd is going to follow suit when said foreign powers start promoting nudity, homosexualism, abandonment of marriage and family values, you name it. All of which are next in line should the Islamic Republic cede and lift hejab rules.

You're mixing things up. Greatest nationalist dynasty in Iran, the sassanids, were not secular, clerics (mobeds) had big influence. You're confusing globalist-liberalism with conservative-nationalism (which does care about the country, family and public decency).

Nationalists realize very well who the bona fide liberals are and the true nationalist vision is damaged and not promoted by the incompetent media which is in hand of "you know which forces" inside Iran.

The attack on family values, marriage and promotion of new sexual identities and genders is already happening separately from the hijab issue. "anti-hijabism" is a golden tool in zionist tool-box to promote those ideas. Once you break this tool and make the likes of massih alinejads go bankrupt and cry, then you will create a big blow to their wider agenda.

 

[TheImmortal]

The government is so paranoid on having control during the toughest economic times in its history it is becoming Shah-ist in its enforcement.

How does a state that preaches the teachings of Imam Ali, end up slaughtering thousands of dogs due to some “western” morality issue and call itself on the side of God? Dogs have existed in Persia long before America was even a country.

Add to the fact that this government shoots itself in the foot with one crisis (building collapse in Abadan) and now this girl (police brutality).

Rabhar sat and talked at great lengths about police brutality in the West and defended the rights of man (George Floyd) who was career criminal and drug user. Who held a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach during a robbery. He is silent on this matter about police brutality in his own country.

Laws must be followed, but death should never be the sentence for clothing violations.

 

[raptor22]

The government is so paranoid on having control during the toughest economic times in its history it is becoming Shah-ist in its enforcement.

How does a state that preaches the teachings of Imam Ali, end up slaughtering thousands of dogs due to some “western” morality issue and call itself on the side of God? Dogs have existed in Persia long before America was even a country.

Add to the fact that this government shoots itself in the foot with one crisis (building collapse in Abadan) and now this girl (police brutality).

Rabhar sat and talked at great lengths about police brutality in the West and defended the rights of man (George Floyd) who was career criminal and drug user. Who held a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach during a robbery. He is silent on this matter about police brutality in his own country.

Laws must be followed, but death should never be the sentence for clothing violations.

Well governments must be corrected, monitored and punished by the people whom put them in the power (society); in an ideal democracy government and society both are strong and work together for the betterment of the country, monitor and correct each other .... for example China has got strong government and weak society that and Gov would do whatever it desires ... in IR some elements in government wanna take China path and consider people as a bunch of wrong doers that needed to be controlled and corrected like google engine safe search.

 

[lydian fall]

 

[Shawnee]

قانون حجاب و پوشش قرار نیست معادل عربستان ۱۴۰۰ سال پیش باشه