Iran has banned a weightlifter from sports for life and dissolved a sports committee after the athlete greeted an Israeli counterpart on a podium.

Mostafa Rajaei, a veteran weightlifter, finished second in his category in the 2023 World Master Weightlifting Championships in Poland and stood on a podium with an Iranian flag wrapped around him on Saturday.

On anther step of the podium stood Maksim Svirsky from Israel, who finished third.

The two athletes shook hands and took a picture together, which led to the Iran Weightlifting Federation banning Rajaei from all sports for life due to what it called an “unforgivable” transgression.

      • Cethin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        Hold up, assigning traits to a government made up by people (a group of people) is weird, but assigning traits to a different group of people isn’t? I don’t really disagree, but you can’t agree with the comment above you and agree with your comment also.

        • s0ykaf [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          you can’t agree with the comment above you and agree with your comment also.

          of course i can; if i couldn’t, i wouldn’t, but i did it, which is proof that i can do it

          • Cethin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            You can’t while being a reasonable, logically consistent person. You can if you argue in bad faith, which I expect but usually people don’t take pride in that.

            • @redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there’s no inconsistency.

              Then a follow up question: is there a difference between ‘liberals’ as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.

              What I mean is, when people talk about governments it’s often as a non-human legal person, which can act, omit, sue, and be sued, but which does not have the full range of human traits, like insincerity. Whereas a group that does not have legal personality and only describes a collection of humans, albeit in the abstract, like ‘liberals’, can demonstrate a fuller range of human traits.

              Then, as an experiment, switch the terms and see if it has the same ring to it:

              politics for [governments] are just a big reality show

              Does this anthropomorphise ‘governments’ in the same way as attributing human emotions to them?

              I don’t necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can’t be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.

              • s0ykaf [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                41 year ago

                i admire the willingness to spell it out lol but that other guy has big reddit debatebro energy and i don’t think it can go anywhere

                • @redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  It’s often the way. Hopefully someone else reading will see the flaw in forever calling an alternative viewpoint ‘bad faith’ because it’s presented with humour.

              • Cethin
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Did he assign a trait to liberals? Because if not, there’s no inconsistency.

                Let’s see…

                politics for liberals are just a big reality show

                It sure seems like it. Liberals treat politics as a reality TV show seems to be a trait described.

                Then a follow up question: is there a difference between ‘liberals’ as a group (i.e. not liberalism) and a government (i.e. an institution)? If so, there may be no inconsistency.

                Sure, there is a difference. They’re both institutions though. They can both be assigned traits in perfectly valid reasonable ways.

                I don’t necessarily have answers to these questions but it seems that you can’t be calling someone out for bad faith unless you can strongly argue yes, no, yes, to the above questions.

                I can strongly answer that “anthropomorphising” things made of anthropomorphic beings is perfectly reasonable. Giving traits to a building can be silly, but sometimes still useful literarily. Using human characteristics to describe humans is totally normal, useful, and reasonable.

        • Fushuan [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 year ago

          Well, yeah it’s obvious, but when people say that X company or country looks weak/happy/pissed, they are refering to the board of directors or congress that are taking the decisions, naming the country instead of the whole sentence is easier.

          You can still find it weird ofc, I was just trying to explain why people do it.

              • Cethin
                link
                fedilink
                English
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is the problem people have with Hexbear specifically. You can almost never have a normal conversation with them. The other day someone (who happened to be from hexbear, but I didn’t realize it at the time of posting) posted an article and said it said something totally different than the actual contents. I pointed out that they were wrong, and they then went through my entire comment history to pick things out and misrepresented them to make themselves feel better I guess. It was weird, but it’s similar to at least half of my interactions with hexbear users.

                Thank you for calling them out.

                • Staines [they/them]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s the second person from hexbear that you didn’t realise at the time of posting. You’re going to have to get better at spotting us if we’re so awful.

                  • Cethin
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    I generally don’t care what instance people are from. I notice hexbear after the fact often because of how bad (aka, not logical) their arguments tend to be. They’re usually fallacious at best if they even defend a position, but often they just go on offense on something random because their original position was indefensible.

        • prole
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          And here I thought I left reddit…

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      Well governments are made of people…

      If you’re assigning human traits to the building the government is in, sure it’s stupid. Recognizing the traits of the people representing the state is pretty normal though.

    • Gustavo
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Governments are made by humans so… I guess human traits carry over