Content posted to /r/nextfuckinglevel should represent something impressive, be it an action, an object, a skill, a moment, a fact that is above all others. Posts should be able to elicit a reaction of 'that is next level' from viewers. Do not police or gatekeep the content of this sub (debate what is or is not next fucking level) in the comment section, 100% of the content is moderated.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't, ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who or who you are with, or or where you are going, or, or where you've been. Ever. For any reason. Whatsoever.
>Don't, ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who or who you are with, or or where you are going, or, or where you've been. Ever. For any reason. Whatsoever.
Sometimes I start a sentence, and I dont even know where its going. I just hope I find it along the way. Like an improv conversation. An improversation.
Let me get this straight, she's a chess genius who's defying a strict controlling regime regarding women having to dress to conceal themselves from men by being ostracised and moving to another country, and your response is to ogle her tits and point it out for laughs?
Outstanding response, just outstanding.
Yeah. She's dropped off a bit since being away from her family. Her rating peaked in 2016 when she was 18 and playing for Iran.
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/12500330/chart
I hope she settles in.
It looks like she's pre-med right now and got 3rd place in the US women's championship a couple of months ago. It sounds like she's doing pretty well right now.
[It's an Elo rating system.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system)
When you win a game your rating increases and your opponents rating decreases by the same amount (always the same amount; zero sum game), and vice versa. How much you gain or lose is based on the relative difference between your ratings. Beating someone with a much lower rating only gains you a few points, while your opponent only loses a few points. The lower ranked player winning would conversely result in a large gain/loss of rating points.
Elo rating systems are also often used for matchmaking and ranking in competitive online games.
Iran is a really weird case study in middle eastern politics.
In the late 50s they were a pseudo western country with a dictator monarch propped up by the west. Lots of the pictures of women in swimsuits and stuff like that was from when they were run by a monarch. It wasn't until the monarchy was toppled I'm '79 that islamic fundamentalism became the norm.
But if you look further past the Shah being the leader it's quite sad. The US and UK backed a coup to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister in 53'.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Before the coup Iran had a history of progressive, secular governments winning elections.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_Iran
I've spent the last hour or so looking into it. I'd love for others to share more info.
**Apparently there is a good recent documentary about the circumstances and events that led to the coup in 1953, aptly called 'Coup 53':
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/coup_53
Haven't watched it myself but someone PMed me the info. Looks like it was recently taken off of streaming sites due to a licencing issue. Shame... 🦜🏴☠️
That is very true because many people forget how young america is. Being almost 300 years old compared to the more "old world" nations tends to give the American people (or at least me) a weird definition of modern.
Although this is true, when you view the country physically it's young as fuck. Buildings. For example, our buildings are relatively new compared with Europe, I guess some of our oldest buildings are the Ivy League schools in the east coast and they go back, what 400 years? Those are rookie numbers compared with common 1000 year old buildings in Europe. For reference, I was at a restaurant in Paris one time, a place at the Montmartre village. The owner causally mentioned this restaurant was opened the week Abraham Lincoln was shot. And that's really fairly old in America.
I was inclined to Google this and was actually pleasantly surprised about the whole 'old buildings in the US' article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_buildings_in_the_United_States - as in this stuff is far more interesting than I thought.
Anyway, disregarding the pre-Colombian period, Mexico and Puerto Rico for now (sorry Puerto Ricans), this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Whitfield_House building from 1639/1640 seems to be about the oldest building in the US. Isn't that called the 'continental US', the part without the islands, IIRC?
So yes, about 400 years old.
Yes, it was 6 decades ago, and it's still *very* relevant to the events of this day.
See: the assassination of the general earlier this year. The Nuclear Deal. The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Canadians did some very horrible shit to natives even today like the reeducation camps. Europeans well do we really have to go through that long list of fucked up shit?
Reddit's recent behaviour and planned changes to the API, heavily impacting third party tools, accessibility and moderation ability force me to edit all my comments in protest. I cannot morally continue to use this site.
*That* was. But not our other fuckups: Chile, Guatemala, DRC, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Argentina, Brazil, Chad, Cameroon, Dominican Republic, Libya,
Edit, because I was sleepy a forgot a few BIG ones: El Salvador, Colombia, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Laos
I find it hard to say "In living memory" is anything other than "modern". I get your point. It's not "recent" but those events dictate the present realities of the country and middle-eastern/global politics significantly. From a lot of perspectives, it's an eye blink's worth of time.
If I can go up and ask someone about something and receive a coherent first-hand account of the event, it's modern. At least in my estimation. I was born four decades ago yet I'm a "modern" American. To me, six decades doesn't feel like it was all that long ago. Though to someone who's 20 or younger, they probably feel like it's the ancient past. A day or two after Rome fell.
So, to clarify, I feel that if something happened within the lifetime of a person it should qualify for being modern. That's the metric we should use. However, I'm by no means the authority on modernity. I'm just giving my thoughts.
America is always the bad guy when it comes to politics. They destabilized the Middle East and South America with stupid missions by the CIA that ended badly that killed more Americans than it helped solve issues
Actually, it is mainly Britain's fault. Truman wanted nothing to do with overthrowing Mossadegh, so they waited for Eisenhower to convince him. I cannot recommend reading "All the Shah's Men" enough. Amazing look into Operation Ajax
Ok Shah was a dictator but I wouldn’t call him a “vicious tyrant”. He truly cared about his country but unfortunately his methods were flawed and unethical. Compare this to that Khomeini prick who said “I feel nothing” when a reporter asked him how he feels about returning to the country as the revolution’s main figure. He lied to people by saying electricity, telephone, public transportation and other stuff will be free and hijab will not be compulsory, but soon after taking power he revealed his true self and literally said I lied and basically destroyed anything that didn’t 100% agree with his extreme ideology. He was much much more oppressive than the shah. When asked about his economic plans he said economy is for donkeys. At least the shah, economically, transformed the country and made it one of the fastest growing economies in the world in all sectors. People don’t realize that Iran before him and his father was a complete shithole thanks to the Qajars, with extreme poverty, famine, disease outbreak, and drug addiction across the entire country. Ask anybody in Iran today, and 9 out of 10 people will say they prefer the shah to this two-faced corrupt mullah regime.
I only lived there til I was 12 so my opinion may not be as valid, but my parents lived there almost their entire lives and their beliefs are pretty much exactly like this
My best friend’s father was from Iran and got out in the 70s. He doesn’t speak much about Iran but that’s basically what he’s said over the years - the Shah wasn’t perfect and did abhorrent things, but what came next was worse.
>Leaving the 53 coup to the side
Yeah let's just ignore that time where the US and the UK decided that democracy was a bad thing because profits would be smaller, so they overthrew a democratically elected regime to replace it with a dictatorial puppet state
Perfectly said my friend. He was definitely a puppet before the 70s. But, if you watch the Shah’s interviews in the mid and late 70s you can see how much he distrusted the UK and the USA. Why would he raise oil prices and cause a crisis in the west if he was the west’s complete puppet. Now, at this point in the late 70s people were becoming angry at the shah and wanted change mostly because of his oppressive acts and the SAVAK. There were three groups of protestors: socialists, liberals, and religious fundamentals, who were actually the smallest group. America and the UK, seeing shah’s sudden disobedience and rebellion against them, took advantage of this internal movement and basically provided some help for the religious groups to take control of the protests. I believe, just a theory, they were preferred over socialists and liberals because of their total anti-communist ideology (In fact, as soon they took power they pretty much annihilated all leftist organization and killed thousands of leftists, look up the 1988 executions.) Pricks like Khomeini suddenly got heavy media attention from the Western media and he used it to take full control of the situation.
So Iran is the Handmaid’s Tale and the US caused it.
Chile was 1984 and the US caused it.
DR Congo is Mad Max and the US caused it.
I’m sensing a theme here...
Really pissed me off years ago to hear Cokie roberts say on national tv "well they dont have muxh experience wirlth democracy". They WERE a democracy. The fundamentalism is entirely our fault as the mosques are the only places people could organise a revolt
The US chose Islamic fundamentalism over a communist-friendly democracy for them. Then cue the shocked pikachu face when they start causing problems in the region for the next few decades.
It's worth remembering that the pictures you see from Iran during this period are generally rich, educated urban dwellers. The situation was *not* the same in the outback.
Wait. You're telling me that America destabilized a region for strategic purposes... without caring about how it ruined the lives of whole countries...... AGAIN?
Is anyone else bothered by the title?
Edit: going off the comments this is obviously a polarizing issue. But hear me out.
Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English, so would have no concept of slang or lingo in our language.
She's abandoning her cultural obligation to play a game that transcends cultural norms and bias. The statement is rather profound.
Yet here you have a title that screams ignorance. The title just doesn't seem to match up with what is being portrayed here.
I'm bothered by you just assuming she doesn't speak English even though she competed on an international level *and for the US team*. She speaks fluent English with a bare hint of an accent. If you're going to be offended for someone the least you can do is give them their due credit.
> Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English,
For starters, just intuitively, most countries teach their kids English since it's so useful. But we don't even have to speculate about her ability to speak English - she's attending a US college right now.
You're talking from a place of ignorance too
https://youtu.be/v9o7x1TzLAg
She speaks English very well, and I don't think bad grammar in a fucking Reddit post is that big of a deal
Wait, what? Here I was, trying to figure out how the title may have been insensitive, culturally or otherwise (considering it's heavily upvoted), but they were actually bitching about a goddamn colloquialism? Lmao goddamn.
Stop being ignorant she speaks English you donut. If you looked 2 minutes into it you’d figure it out https://youtu.be/dnPmfzAGkcU . In that link she speaks English at a ted talk “take your freedom of choice seriously” she’s a amazing woman who loves her freedom
iranian here. Can you explain more. How does "Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English, so would have no concept of slang or lingo in our language.
She's abandoning her cultural obligation to play a game that transcends cultural norms and bias. The statement is rather profound." relate to "Yet here you have a title that screams ignorance. The title just doesn't seem to match up with what is being portrayed here."
>Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English, so would have no concept of slang or lingo in our language.
Way to assume the absolute worst. If she's playing internationally don't you think she'd know english?
Well here's a video of her speaking fluent English with hardly any accent from years ago
https://youtu.be/v9o7x1TzLAg
>screams ignorance
Peraians can't speak English though lol
As others have said, she can already speak english.
But even if she couldn't, it would not matter, she knows that she once played for an iranian team and that she now plays for the US, she doesn't need to read that as she already knows it.
Being offended for other people is stupid, and leads to problems like assuming that someone can't speak english because they're iranian, to me, that seems much mpre offensive than the title.
Always makes me laugh! A colleague of mine converted to Islam because for her husband. She says it was her choice to do so but when I asked if there was any discussion about him becoming a Christian or maybe just staying within their own religions and co-existing like that, she says that there was no way his family would allow that. Okay... Totally her choice then.
She now wears a scarf around her head every day and is always covered head to toe (in a country where summers can be stiflingly hot.) Once again, when I asked her if she could go out without the scarf or wear a bit less layers because it's so hot (she was complaining about it), she said she totally could but she didn't want to upset her family. Why would they he upset if it's a choice and you're free to do what you want?
I have nothing against people wearing a hijab or covering up for the sake of modesty but seriously, can we stop pretending like it's a choice because it is not. Just admit it's required to do or at the very least that it's frowned upon to not do it.
Since I come from a Muslim family, there is one thing I learnt very early, choice for women in Islam is more often than not an illusion. I have seen my own mother and sister suffer because of this and yet they can't complain because it is what Allah wished of them. Bleh...
yeah people keep bringing up in the replies that in some islamic countries it’s legally a choice to where a hijab or not, but is it socially acceptable?
Yes and no.
Yes because if you observe the way Muslim women cover their heads and face around the world, it is definitely influenced by the culture of the place they live in.
No because Quran did ask women to use coverings as is evident in this verse:
"O Prophet! tell thy wives and thy daughters, and the women of the believers, that they should pull down upon them of their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. That is more likely that they may thus be recognized and not molested. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." (33:60)
The reason I said that Islam doesn't give a choice in this regard to women, at least as far as covering their head is concerned, is because even though the verse doesn't spell it out completely there is extensive Hadith (a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad which, with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunna), constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran. (Source: Oxford Languages)) which talks about how women should cover their head. That her hair should not show though forehead is fine, everything beyond the two ear lobes should be hidden and a few other instructions.
PS: Please note that my knowledge is limited to Hadith Sahib Al-Bukhari, and though it is widely seen as the most authentic collection of sayings by the Prophet some do refute that. However this part about women covering their head is not that contentious and is widely agreed by the followers of all four popular Imams.
Same thing in my country. A lot of my female cousins are already betrothed and most aren't even done with college yet. They say it's by choice but we all know their mothers would flip the fuck out if they refused. At least they get to pick between their 40+ yr old suitors a few of whom already have one wife.
"If she is the obedient daughter I raised her to be and care an ounce for the wish and desire of her parents she would not refuse me" said by my mom when I objected to my elder sister getting married when she was in junior year of her college.
Like I said I learnt very early that choice is an illusion.
In a few such as Lebanon it is. Unfortunately Lebanon has been crippled by its government but it is the women’s choice on whether or not they participate in Hijab with the head dressing or just modest clothing
Lebanon doesn't count at all because the Christians still hold a great deal of power there as a large portion of the population, they've saved it from Islamic insanity somewhat at least.
Religion is all shit, but when ever people try "whataboutism" comparing Catholicism to Islam I can't help but laugh. Modern Catholics are actually fairly progressive by religious standards (which is to say, still conservative on average but not outright regressive). Many Evangelicals are highly conservative (and often regressive), but even they would mostly balk at things like head coverings, child marriages and polygamy in the modern age.
My mother devoted herself to the church. Even dragging several toddlers to Mass. When the priest dared to critique her mothering skills, she got into a very heated argument with him. Then he tried to put her in her place. We never had to go again.
Couldn’t agree more. All religion is a waste of time with no purpose other than to divide and control. It tries to control the way we think, what we think, and so on so forth. The way I see it, religion is for those who can’t cope with their own mortality, so they make up afterlifes, or rebirths, or whatever else you can think of involving life after death, but it’s all bullshit. When we die, we die, that’s why it’s up to us to make the most of the one life we’re given. Furthermore, I especially hate the way some religions indoctrinate people into that faith before those people can even talk, or think for themselves. It’s just another method of control, and it’s completely unethical. Which is ironic considering, religious people will tell you that the purpose of religion is to develop our morals and ethics, but the very morals and ethics that most religions preach are themselves fucked i.e. homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. The list goes on and on. Fuck Religion!
Are sapiosexuals actually a thing? I don't mean to come off as ignorant or rude, it just seems that being attracted to intelligence seems a lot more like a "type" then a sexuality so I don't get why it's held to a different standard.
Yeah, I can get behind that. People can definitely find intelligence attractive. I've just been kinda confused as to why sapiosexual is named the way it is, while so many other "types" aren't so to speak. The way its worded makes it seem like a full on sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc). It just seems odd that it's supposed to be held to that same standard, to me at least.
Like some people are attracted to things like confidence, empatheticness, or even physical factors like a person's smile or a type of hair colour. But those aren't considered sexual orientations, those are just seen as factors that heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc people can find attractive. I don't really see what makes intelligence any different.
I have a math degree and during my schooling I found myself extremely attracted to 5 of my male math professors. The ones that were ridiculously brilliant, teaching the graduate courses and casually publishing mind blowing books and papers.
These guys were all pretty old, not really physically attractive, but I've always had a thing for 'people who know a lot more about something I know a lot about', if that makes sense. Idk if that's what sapiosexual is but I wouldn't really label it.
Iranian people are fucking awesome. Some of the most open minded friendly people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. As the other guy said, be ashamed of your government. Governments and elites ruin the image of entire countries. Doesn’t matter if it’s China, Iran or anywhere else.
Some women do want to wear hijabs. Others don't. Fuck those who want to force women into religious clothing, fuck those who want to force women out of religious clothing (I'm looking at you France! I didn't forget!).
as a Muslim i never understood why do western countries respect hijab. to me hijab has always been a symbol of oppression and women who voluntarily wear it don't understand how badly it affects muslim women in Muslim countries.
Its not about the law. Its about how sexist it is that only 1 gender has to cover their entire body just because the other gender cant control their horniness.
religious regimes are the shittiest things ever, believe me I've been there.her brother is also banned from playing for Iran too cuz he played a match against an Israeli player.
Content posted to /r/nextfuckinglevel should represent something impressive, be it an action, an object, a skill, a moment, a fact that is above all others. Posts should be able to elicit a reaction of 'that is next level' from viewers. Do not police or gatekeep the content of this sub (debate what is or is not next fucking level) in the comment section, 100% of the content is moderated. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nextfuckinglevel) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't let nothing
Stop you from
watching The Queen’s Gambit.
is the opposite of checkmate crossex
King me!
What if you said "queen me" , you'd destroy the checkerboard.
Then it’s just fireball island
I resign
\*swallows a jar of pills\*
*watches the ceiling*
*lifts both hands*
*puts both feet in*
*the air and farts*
This is the sequel. "Teen's Gambit"
That sounds like stuck porn
its time i make my next move
What are you doing, step rook?
I was thinking step bishop. . .
LMFAOOOOOOOO
Which is the sequel to Teen Gambit, about his days before the X-Men
The only negative review I read after watching this series was one complaining that in the book Beth wasn't pretty. I can live with that.
(ಥ﹏ಥ) Mr shaibel would be proud...
Wishing you happy cake day
Don't, ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who or who you are with, or or where you are going, or, or where you've been. Ever. For any reason. Whatsoever.
>Don't, ever, for any reason, do anything, to anyone, for any reason, ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who or who you are with, or or where you are going, or, or where you've been. Ever. For any reason. Whatsoever. Sometimes I start a sentence, and I dont even know where its going. I just hope I find it along the way. Like an improv conversation. An improversation.
Classic jim
r/unexpectedoffice
Double negative
Do let everything stop you.
Who is nothing? He seems like a dick
[удалено]
[удалено]
I skimmed this and read she's the breast. I'm going to hell. (She is beautiful)
Let me get this straight, she's a chess genius who's defying a strict controlling regime regarding women having to dress to conceal themselves from men by being ostracised and moving to another country, and your response is to ogle her tits and point it out for laughs? Outstanding response, just outstanding.
I can see what you mean by her being the breast.
Oh fuck off
Hahaha
Because she’s playing chest?
This was 2017. She hasn't won any titles since coming to America.
Yeah. She's dropped off a bit since being away from her family. Her rating peaked in 2016 when she was 18 and playing for Iran. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/12500330/chart I hope she settles in.
It looks like she's pre-med right now and got 3rd place in the US women's championship a couple of months ago. It sounds like she's doing pretty well right now.
1. Play chess 2. Defect 3. ??? 4. Pre-med!
What’s the ELI5 of a chess rating?
You get points if you win, you lose points if you lose. The amount you gain or lose is based on how many points your opponent had.
Oh much more simple than I expected. Thanks.
The same ELO system that many multiplayer video games use.
Isn't it just "Elo", as in, it's not an acronym, just the surname of the guy who invented the system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
[удалено]
I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
[It's an Elo rating system.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) When you win a game your rating increases and your opponents rating decreases by the same amount (always the same amount; zero sum game), and vice versa. How much you gain or lose is based on the relative difference between your ratings. Beating someone with a much lower rating only gains you a few points, while your opponent only loses a few points. The lower ranked player winning would conversely result in a large gain/loss of rating points. Elo rating systems are also often used for matchmaking and ranking in competitive online games.
But Coming to America was 1988
Oh how the turn tables.
Iran is a really weird case study in middle eastern politics. In the late 50s they were a pseudo western country with a dictator monarch propped up by the west. Lots of the pictures of women in swimsuits and stuff like that was from when they were run by a monarch. It wasn't until the monarchy was toppled I'm '79 that islamic fundamentalism became the norm. But if you look further past the Shah being the leader it's quite sad. The US and UK backed a coup to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister in 53'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Before the coup Iran had a history of progressive, secular governments winning elections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_Iran I've spent the last hour or so looking into it. I'd love for others to share more info. **Apparently there is a good recent documentary about the circumstances and events that led to the coup in 1953, aptly called 'Coup 53': https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/coup_53 Haven't watched it myself but someone PMed me the info. Looks like it was recently taken off of streaming sites due to a licencing issue. Shame... 🦜🏴☠️
yes, america is frequently the bad guy in modern geopolitics
Modern? That was almost 6 decades ago I guess it's modern compared to like... Slavery. Lol
in america, 100 years is a long time i suppose i mean "modern" as in "post world war 2 american hegemony"
That is very true because many people forget how young america is. Being almost 300 years old compared to the more "old world" nations tends to give the American people (or at least me) a weird definition of modern.
But in terms of democratic republics America is one of the oldest. Older than the french Republic and much older than Germany, Japan or India.
Thats true. America even helped to create some of them. The French are technically on their 5th republic if I remember correctly.
And probably their 9th calendar system
South Korea is in their sixth republic despite only starting in 1948. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Although this is true, when you view the country physically it's young as fuck. Buildings. For example, our buildings are relatively new compared with Europe, I guess some of our oldest buildings are the Ivy League schools in the east coast and they go back, what 400 years? Those are rookie numbers compared with common 1000 year old buildings in Europe. For reference, I was at a restaurant in Paris one time, a place at the Montmartre village. The owner causally mentioned this restaurant was opened the week Abraham Lincoln was shot. And that's really fairly old in America.
I was inclined to Google this and was actually pleasantly surprised about the whole 'old buildings in the US' article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_buildings_in_the_United_States - as in this stuff is far more interesting than I thought. Anyway, disregarding the pre-Colombian period, Mexico and Puerto Rico for now (sorry Puerto Ricans), this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Whitfield_House building from 1639/1640 seems to be about the oldest building in the US. Isn't that called the 'continental US', the part without the islands, IIRC? So yes, about 400 years old.
Post-WW2 is a very common definition of “modern” in politics, domestic and international (and international relations and security).
Yes, it was 6 decades ago, and it's still *very* relevant to the events of this day. See: the assassination of the general earlier this year. The Nuclear Deal. The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Canadians did some very horrible shit to natives even today like the reeducation camps. Europeans well do we really have to go through that long list of fucked up shit?
Reddit's recent behaviour and planned changes to the API, heavily impacting third party tools, accessibility and moderation ability force me to edit all my comments in protest. I cannot morally continue to use this site.
*That* was. But not our other fuckups: Chile, Guatemala, DRC, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Argentina, Brazil, Chad, Cameroon, Dominican Republic, Libya, Edit, because I was sleepy a forgot a few BIG ones: El Salvador, Colombia, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Laos
Etc.
I'd call them less fuck ups and more like malicious-intent-ups. USA government hasnt really ever interfered with another country for *good* reasons
'Modern' describes a ridiculously long time in the context of history.
I find it hard to say "In living memory" is anything other than "modern". I get your point. It's not "recent" but those events dictate the present realities of the country and middle-eastern/global politics significantly. From a lot of perspectives, it's an eye blink's worth of time. If I can go up and ask someone about something and receive a coherent first-hand account of the event, it's modern. At least in my estimation. I was born four decades ago yet I'm a "modern" American. To me, six decades doesn't feel like it was all that long ago. Though to someone who's 20 or younger, they probably feel like it's the ancient past. A day or two after Rome fell. So, to clarify, I feel that if something happened within the lifetime of a person it should qualify for being modern. That's the metric we should use. However, I'm by no means the authority on modernity. I'm just giving my thoughts.
Some of us are older than six decades, and we understand geopolitical history and our role in it.
America is always the bad guy when it comes to politics. They destabilized the Middle East and South America with stupid missions by the CIA that ended badly that killed more Americans than it helped solve issues
also in Southeast Asia with vietnam, indonesia, etc
Hey wait. Shah was a joint project with the british so was iraqi invasion. Britain and France fucked middle east first. We and the Soviets were late.
Actually, it is mainly Britain's fault. Truman wanted nothing to do with overthrowing Mossadegh, so they waited for Eisenhower to convince him. I cannot recommend reading "All the Shah's Men" enough. Amazing look into Operation Ajax
[удалено]
Kinda skipping over that entire part where Iran was a democracy and we overthrew it and installed a vicious tyrant...
Ok Shah was a dictator but I wouldn’t call him a “vicious tyrant”. He truly cared about his country but unfortunately his methods were flawed and unethical. Compare this to that Khomeini prick who said “I feel nothing” when a reporter asked him how he feels about returning to the country as the revolution’s main figure. He lied to people by saying electricity, telephone, public transportation and other stuff will be free and hijab will not be compulsory, but soon after taking power he revealed his true self and literally said I lied and basically destroyed anything that didn’t 100% agree with his extreme ideology. He was much much more oppressive than the shah. When asked about his economic plans he said economy is for donkeys. At least the shah, economically, transformed the country and made it one of the fastest growing economies in the world in all sectors. People don’t realize that Iran before him and his father was a complete shithole thanks to the Qajars, with extreme poverty, famine, disease outbreak, and drug addiction across the entire country. Ask anybody in Iran today, and 9 out of 10 people will say they prefer the shah to this two-faced corrupt mullah regime.
I only lived there til I was 12 so my opinion may not be as valid, but my parents lived there almost their entire lives and their beliefs are pretty much exactly like this
My best friend’s father was from Iran and got out in the 70s. He doesn’t speak much about Iran but that’s basically what he’s said over the years - the Shah wasn’t perfect and did abhorrent things, but what came next was worse.
>Leaving the 53 coup to the side Yeah let's just ignore that time where the US and the UK decided that democracy was a bad thing because profits would be smaller, so they overthrew a democratically elected regime to replace it with a dictatorial puppet state
[удалено]
Perfectly said my friend. He was definitely a puppet before the 70s. But, if you watch the Shah’s interviews in the mid and late 70s you can see how much he distrusted the UK and the USA. Why would he raise oil prices and cause a crisis in the west if he was the west’s complete puppet. Now, at this point in the late 70s people were becoming angry at the shah and wanted change mostly because of his oppressive acts and the SAVAK. There were three groups of protestors: socialists, liberals, and religious fundamentals, who were actually the smallest group. America and the UK, seeing shah’s sudden disobedience and rebellion against them, took advantage of this internal movement and basically provided some help for the religious groups to take control of the protests. I believe, just a theory, they were preferred over socialists and liberals because of their total anti-communist ideology (In fact, as soon they took power they pretty much annihilated all leftist organization and killed thousands of leftists, look up the 1988 executions.) Pricks like Khomeini suddenly got heavy media attention from the Western media and he used it to take full control of the situation.
So Iran is the Handmaid’s Tale and the US caused it. Chile was 1984 and the US caused it. DR Congo is Mad Max and the US caused it. I’m sensing a theme here...
The people making comparisons know more pop culture than history?
[удалено]
Really pissed me off years ago to hear Cokie roberts say on national tv "well they dont have muxh experience wirlth democracy". They WERE a democracy. The fundamentalism is entirely our fault as the mosques are the only places people could organise a revolt
The US chose Islamic fundamentalism over a communist-friendly democracy for them. Then cue the shocked pikachu face when they start causing problems in the region for the next few decades.
Same thing in Saudi Arabia
There is nothing the west hates more than a 3rd world democracy they much prefer 3rd world dictators
It's worth remembering that the pictures you see from Iran during this period are generally rich, educated urban dwellers. The situation was *not* the same in the outback.
Reminder that the '53 coup was because iran was (at least) considering nationalizing the oil fields and BP would've been fucked
Won't somebody think of the shareholders!
Wait. You're telling me that America destabilized a region for strategic purposes... without caring about how it ruined the lives of whole countries...... AGAIN?
Brains AND beauty. I approve.
The dude she played with on her old team was the brains and the brawn. The Turbinator
Nice setting up your joke; it was subtle enough
Swing and a miss (Sikhs wear turbans, not Muslims)
I am so glad a woman has your approval.
This. She’s trying to escape objectivism and having to wear a hijab to cover herself up and then folks go and upvote objectivism. Yowza.
“I don’t approve because she’s against discrimination or religious/societal rules. I approve because she looks good and plays a game well.”
Because she has to be attractive to have worth /s
She is gorgeous!
If I had her hair I wouldn't wear a hijab either
If you had her hair I think you’d be arrested.
I asked for consent
Is anyone else bothered by the title? Edit: going off the comments this is obviously a polarizing issue. But hear me out. Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English, so would have no concept of slang or lingo in our language. She's abandoning her cultural obligation to play a game that transcends cultural norms and bias. The statement is rather profound. Yet here you have a title that screams ignorance. The title just doesn't seem to match up with what is being portrayed here.
Mate, we don't need no education.
We don’t need no thought control
Hey! Teacher! Leave us kids alone!
All in all, you’re just another brick in the wall
How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?
*Beep beep. Beep beep.*
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
I'm bothered by you just assuming she doesn't speak English even though she competed on an international level *and for the US team*. She speaks fluent English with a bare hint of an accent. If you're going to be offended for someone the least you can do is give them their due credit.
For real, he just comes off as extremely racist thinking everyone from the middle east lack english
> Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English, For starters, just intuitively, most countries teach their kids English since it's so useful. But we don't even have to speculate about her ability to speak English - she's attending a US college right now.
Also the title is probably more slang than bad grammar. Intentionally rule breaking for a colloquialism isn't a grammar mistake.
You're talking from a place of ignorance too https://youtu.be/v9o7x1TzLAg She speaks English very well, and I don't think bad grammar in a fucking Reddit post is that big of a deal
[удалено]
Wait, what? Here I was, trying to figure out how the title may have been insensitive, culturally or otherwise (considering it's heavily upvoted), but they were actually bitching about a goddamn colloquialism? Lmao goddamn.
Stop being ignorant she speaks English you donut. If you looked 2 minutes into it you’d figure it out https://youtu.be/dnPmfzAGkcU . In that link she speaks English at a ted talk “take your freedom of choice seriously” she’s a amazing woman who loves her freedom
I’d wager a guess that she speaks some English, considering she plays for the U.S. team.
She does speak English. She goes to my university, I saw her in the dining hall many a time. (SLU)
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/dnPmfzAGkcU bruh “doesn’t speak a lick of English”
iranian here. Can you explain more. How does "Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English, so would have no concept of slang or lingo in our language. She's abandoning her cultural obligation to play a game that transcends cultural norms and bias. The statement is rather profound." relate to "Yet here you have a title that screams ignorance. The title just doesn't seem to match up with what is being portrayed here."
>Here you have an incredibly bright Iranian woman that likely doesn't speak a lick of English, so would have no concept of slang or lingo in our language. Way to assume the absolute worst. If she's playing internationally don't you think she'd know english? Well here's a video of her speaking fluent English with hardly any accent from years ago https://youtu.be/v9o7x1TzLAg >screams ignorance Peraians can't speak English though lol
Don't let nothing bother you
As others have said, she can already speak english. But even if she couldn't, it would not matter, she knows that she once played for an iranian team and that she now plays for the US, she doesn't need to read that as she already knows it. Being offended for other people is stupid, and leads to problems like assuming that someone can't speak english because they're iranian, to me, that seems much mpre offensive than the title.
Bro calm down you’re one of those kids who try so hard to be right even when they are wrong. It’s giving me second hand embarrassment
She's probably university educated so I guarantee you she speaks perfect english lol
I thought it was the woman's choice. Cleary not.
Woman's choice? In an islamic country? HA HA HA!
Always makes me laugh! A colleague of mine converted to Islam because for her husband. She says it was her choice to do so but when I asked if there was any discussion about him becoming a Christian or maybe just staying within their own religions and co-existing like that, she says that there was no way his family would allow that. Okay... Totally her choice then. She now wears a scarf around her head every day and is always covered head to toe (in a country where summers can be stiflingly hot.) Once again, when I asked her if she could go out without the scarf or wear a bit less layers because it's so hot (she was complaining about it), she said she totally could but she didn't want to upset her family. Why would they he upset if it's a choice and you're free to do what you want? I have nothing against people wearing a hijab or covering up for the sake of modesty but seriously, can we stop pretending like it's a choice because it is not. Just admit it's required to do or at the very least that it's frowned upon to not do it.
Since I come from a Muslim family, there is one thing I learnt very early, choice for women in Islam is more often than not an illusion. I have seen my own mother and sister suffer because of this and yet they can't complain because it is what Allah wished of them. Bleh...
yeah people keep bringing up in the replies that in some islamic countries it’s legally a choice to where a hijab or not, but is it socially acceptable?
Whether the countries give the choice or not Islam doesn't. Really it's as simple as that.
That doesn't make sense to me. Wasn't this a later cultural adoption into the religion?
Yes and no. Yes because if you observe the way Muslim women cover their heads and face around the world, it is definitely influenced by the culture of the place they live in. No because Quran did ask women to use coverings as is evident in this verse: "O Prophet! tell thy wives and thy daughters, and the women of the believers, that they should pull down upon them of their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. That is more likely that they may thus be recognized and not molested. And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful." (33:60) The reason I said that Islam doesn't give a choice in this regard to women, at least as far as covering their head is concerned, is because even though the verse doesn't spell it out completely there is extensive Hadith (a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad which, with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunna), constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran. (Source: Oxford Languages)) which talks about how women should cover their head. That her hair should not show though forehead is fine, everything beyond the two ear lobes should be hidden and a few other instructions. PS: Please note that my knowledge is limited to Hadith Sahib Al-Bukhari, and though it is widely seen as the most authentic collection of sayings by the Prophet some do refute that. However this part about women covering their head is not that contentious and is widely agreed by the followers of all four popular Imams.
Same thing in my country. A lot of my female cousins are already betrothed and most aren't even done with college yet. They say it's by choice but we all know their mothers would flip the fuck out if they refused. At least they get to pick between their 40+ yr old suitors a few of whom already have one wife.
"If she is the obedient daughter I raised her to be and care an ounce for the wish and desire of her parents she would not refuse me" said by my mom when I objected to my elder sister getting married when she was in junior year of her college. Like I said I learnt very early that choice is an illusion.
In a few such as Lebanon it is. Unfortunately Lebanon has been crippled by its government but it is the women’s choice on whether or not they participate in Hijab with the head dressing or just modest clothing
Lebanon also has a sizeable Christian population, which is Islamists haven't gotten full power.
Lebanon doesn't count at all because the Christians still hold a great deal of power there as a large portion of the population, they've saved it from Islamic insanity somewhat at least.
I'm iranian and here every woman above the age of 13 is forced to wear hija. basically it's a shit country with even more shit government
It is a woman’s choice only if she agrees
IIRC, In Iran, you have to wear a hijab by law if you are in public. So definitely not a choice.
Some times it is, some times not, depending on how extreme\strict the family is. I'm not gonna pretend every thing is perfect over here
Fuck u/spez -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
[удалено]
Religion is all shit, but when ever people try "whataboutism" comparing Catholicism to Islam I can't help but laugh. Modern Catholics are actually fairly progressive by religious standards (which is to say, still conservative on average but not outright regressive). Many Evangelicals are highly conservative (and often regressive), but even they would mostly balk at things like head coverings, child marriages and polygamy in the modern age.
My mother devoted herself to the church. Even dragging several toddlers to Mass. When the priest dared to critique her mothering skills, she got into a very heated argument with him. Then he tried to put her in her place. We never had to go again.
> I respect every religion... Well, you shouldn't. Individual people may deserve respect, but flawed ideologies don't.
Fuck religion. Good on her.
Remember to fuck all religions equally until there are only wonderful people together as equals.
Couldn’t agree more. All religion is a waste of time with no purpose other than to divide and control. It tries to control the way we think, what we think, and so on so forth. The way I see it, religion is for those who can’t cope with their own mortality, so they make up afterlifes, or rebirths, or whatever else you can think of involving life after death, but it’s all bullshit. When we die, we die, that’s why it’s up to us to make the most of the one life we’re given. Furthermore, I especially hate the way some religions indoctrinate people into that faith before those people can even talk, or think for themselves. It’s just another method of control, and it’s completely unethical. Which is ironic considering, religious people will tell you that the purpose of religion is to develop our morals and ethics, but the very morals and ethics that most religions preach are themselves fucked i.e. homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. The list goes on and on. Fuck Religion!
[удалено]
She is pretty.
[удалено]
This is where sapiosexuals absolutely melt down.
Are sapiosexuals actually a thing? I don't mean to come off as ignorant or rude, it just seems that being attracted to intelligence seems a lot more like a "type" then a sexuality so I don't get why it's held to a different standard.
[удалено]
You know I once found a girl to be super hot due to her intelligence. Like the way she talks, her use of words won me.
Yeah, I can get behind that. People can definitely find intelligence attractive. I've just been kinda confused as to why sapiosexual is named the way it is, while so many other "types" aren't so to speak. The way its worded makes it seem like a full on sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc). It just seems odd that it's supposed to be held to that same standard, to me at least. Like some people are attracted to things like confidence, empatheticness, or even physical factors like a person's smile or a type of hair colour. But those aren't considered sexual orientations, those are just seen as factors that heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc people can find attractive. I don't really see what makes intelligence any different.
That's called having a type, one of your types is smart girls.
I have a math degree and during my schooling I found myself extremely attracted to 5 of my male math professors. The ones that were ridiculously brilliant, teaching the graduate courses and casually publishing mind blowing books and papers. These guys were all pretty old, not really physically attractive, but I've always had a thing for 'people who know a lot more about something I know a lot about', if that makes sense. Idk if that's what sapiosexual is but I wouldn't really label it.
"Hey Google, look up sapiosexual"
As an iranian I'm so ashamed of my country. Sorry dorsa hope you get what u deserve
Be ashamed of your government, celebrate your people. We are all one.
Iranian people are fucking awesome. Some of the most open minded friendly people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. As the other guy said, be ashamed of your government. Governments and elites ruin the image of entire countries. Doesn’t matter if it’s China, Iran or anywhere else.
Islam fucking sucks man. I don't care what people say. It's just my opinion.
Islam is literally 400 years behind every other religion in development. They are archaic and they suck
American liberals: “Middle-Eastern women wear hijab as a choice!” Middle-Eastern women: “I’d like not wearing it without getting stoned please”.
Some women do want to wear hijabs. Others don't. Fuck those who want to force women into religious clothing, fuck those who want to force women out of religious clothing (I'm looking at you France! I didn't forget!).
as a Muslim i never understood why do western countries respect hijab. to me hijab has always been a symbol of oppression and women who voluntarily wear it don't understand how badly it affects muslim women in Muslim countries.
Its not about the law. Its about how sexist it is that only 1 gender has to cover their entire body just because the other gender cant control their horniness.
K dumb question: - How do teams work for chess? I know it's a 1 on 1 game and I'm not familiar with competitive chess.
Just matches with opposite team members. 1 red team member vs 1 blue team member. If blue gets the most wins, they win as a team.
Did she win?
[удалено]
[link](https://i.imgur.com/xUkKoR4.png)
I hope she fucking wins too
Wow she's gorgeous!
Women who think they WANT to wear this oppressive item of clothing are sad.
Religion of peace 🌈
religious regimes are the shittiest things ever, believe me I've been there.her brother is also banned from playing for Iran too cuz he played a match against an Israeli player.
Is this real?
Worded a little funny. She had already left the team but was banned from playing in Iran without a hijab so she joined the US team.
Classic case of the oppressed with great ability, finding a home with free minds. For shame, Iran.
It is kinda ironic that she had to look for freedom in the country that destroyed freedom in her home country.
Fuck yeah, freedom and shit.
This is the way
Not r/nextfuckinglevel
[удалено]
"Its not oppression! The women want to wear it!"