I'm keen on your examples from Iran. Was it the time that the British asked the CIA to depose the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and reinstall the Shah, for the benefit of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now a subsidiary of BP)?
No, I think it was the time a civil unrest threw the Shah and put the ayatollahs in power with the help of the Soviet Union (which is suspiciously absent from your remarks) and now their women face jail for not wearing the veil or their homosexuals are hung by a crane
Both examples fit (one is monarchy—a stage managed abortive coup to justify an autocoup (the CIA directing both) by which a constitutional monarchy became a dictatorial one—the other a politics/religion merger.)
If you are describing the problem the way it has upthread but only pointing to one or the other of the Iranian examples, it's pretty obviously being selective for dishonest purposes.
We've banned accounts for "spewing hatred at Iran" (and other countries). You shouldn't falsely accuse people, let alone make up grave charges like hating a great people (or any people).
You have little credibility asking for "objective and holistic" discussion when your accounts routinely post falsehoods, behave viciously, and foster flamewars. HN's rules are designed specifically to support the kind of discussion you criticize others for not having, and you're breaking those rules as consistently as anyone here.
There's no problem with thoughtful criticism. The problem is that when people on the internet argue about capitalism, socialism, and other big generic topics like that, discussions quickly turn repetitive and nasty. It's that which we don't want, because it's destructive of curious conversation, so we ask people not to do it and ban them if they ignore our requests.
We moderate the same way regardless of which direction the bashing is going. If you looked at this objectively, that would be obvious to you, but ideologues of whatever flavor only look at half the data—the half (or whatever the percentage is) which supports their side. Then they make up monsters based on it ("dang has decreed thou shalt not criticize capitalism!!") That part is easy, since any data which contradicts it has been excluded. What no one wants to reckon with is that their enemies on the other side have exactly the same picture—they just think the mods are secretly working for you and out to get them.
Since you don't want to use HN as intended and are ignoring our requests to follow the rules, I've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26648613.
Well, yep, the Ayatollahs and Soviets were "suspiciously" absent from my remarks because I was referring to the British-American coup of 1953, not the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Not sure why you find it suspicious that I wouldn't label actors who didn't really come on stage for 26 years, and who came to prominence because of the unpopularity of the Padishah installed at the behest of American and British corporate interests.
In fact, they were entirely irrelevant. Why did you feel the need to invoke them?
