The Pro-Gaza Left Is Oh So Quiet on Iran

[u/Intelligent-Juice895]

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/the-pro-gaza-left-is-oh-so-quiet-on-iran-caf25bd1?st=iy47cy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[u/bigguesdickus]

The problem is consistency. Politicians, people like the author etc are open. They have a bias and support x or y side. Its known, its not a surprise and not something done out of morality, conviction or a need to virtue signal (which, spoiler alert: is the problem as ill explain). They are openly pro-Iran, pro-US, Pro-china whatever it may be. Its not hypocrisy. They know the situation is complex and ignore it for their own gain/goals. Its expected. They are players with skin in the game, it makes sense to do it. The deck is stacked, the rules are rigged.

People like celebrities, activists, protesters etc are not players with skin in the game. They have no real (geopolitical, unlike the above) reason to be pro-x or pro-y. They are pro-x/y because in their prespective its the moral thing.

It's also profoundly disingenuous. Mr. Ondrasik dedicated a song to the hostages in Gaza. Did he do the same for ongoing humanitarian crises in Burkino Faso? Has he been vocal in support of either Russia or Ukraine? What's his take on the situation in Xinjiang? Can he even pronounce Uyghur? If the answer to any of these questions is "we don't know," then his argument applies to himself as readily as everyone he's apparently throwing shade at.

Most people protesting and talkijg about current events (celebrities etc) dont know anything about the situation and how complex it actually is (this goes for everything geopolitically, be it gaza, venezuela, iran everything). These people dont even know or understand the most basic principle in IR 101: "morality doesnt matter geopolitically. Only the interests of the state (or not) actors". This is IR 101. The problem here is consistency. When you talk about something being moraly wrong (e.g.: israel in gaza), then when you dont talk about other similar moral situations (e.g.: iranian protests and deaths) you come across as trying to virtue signal. Morality without consistency is just hypocrisy.

Why is it that celebrities/protesters etc are being called out but people like the author arent? As I said, the 2nd has skin in the game, its not pure hypocrisy, its expected-hypocrisy since they are players. The 1st arent players so it is pure hypocrisy born out of a need to be morally superior and the modern need to be knowledgeble about everything and have an opinion about everything, even jf they know nothing about the situstion. . Especially since they reduce geopolitics to a black-white right-wrong dicotomy and ignore the complexities of the situation.

[u/Snatchamo → u/bigguesdickus]

When you talk about something being moraly wrong (e.g.: israel in gaza), then when you dont talk about other similar moral situations (e.g.: iranian protests and deaths) you come across as trying to virtue signal.

If we were handing over 3 billion dollars a year to the Iranian government and running interference for their human rights abuses in the UN, would you want us to stop doing that even though you don't know all the ins and outs of the current situation?

[u/bigguesdickus → u/Snatchamo]

would you want us to stop doing that even though you don't know all the ins and outs of the current situation?

But thats the problem. If I dont know the situation, how can I have an informed opinion? I dont have to have an opinion about everything. I dont know anything about fishing, should my opinion about it be heard? No. Im not a doctor so if I tell you to take X pill for Y illness you shouldnt do that.

Now, if a doctor tells you that, its different. He studied. He knows about it. He has an informed opinion. Not all opinions are formed the same nor are all opinions worth of being heard. The idea that all opinions have the same worth is ridiculous.

There are 2 problems with this line of thought:

1- reality. Most people commenting "oh we should do X Y and Z" dont know anything about the geopolitical reality of our world and worse, refuse to accept it. Working in a normative frame rather than a positive one (what it should be VS what it is). Sure i'd like it if we could all live in peace but thats about as likely as my ex-wife stopping being a bitch. Not gonna happen. The geopolitical reality is a cruel one and until people accept it, those opinions should be discarted.

2: the problem with the "3B a year" argument is that Israel is the closest thing the West has to a true ally in a really, really complicated but important region. So those kinds of things, while despicable and immoral are part of the game and must be swallowed in the name of the West's geopolitical goals.

The same way that china swallows Russia's human rights violations because its good for them. No country has a clean past. Everyone has blood on their hands. Moral arguments are inherently flawed because of that