this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

Main, home of the dope ass bear.

15965 readers
72 users here now

THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)

(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)

A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!

Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!


gun-unity State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership

guaido Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources

smoker-on-the-balcony Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)

frothingfash Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with

just-a-theory An Amainzing Organizing Story

feminism Main Source for Feminism for Babies

data-revolutionary Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide


ussr-cry Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the recent Iran–Israel ceasefire situation, both sides publicly declared agreement on a truce. Hours later, Israel claimed Iran had launched missiles, violating the deal. Iran, in turn, denied any such launch ever took place.

What strikes me is how dramatically their statements diverge — and yet neither has offered any solid proof. No satellite imagery, no intercepted communications, no verified video footage. This makes me wonder: when the technical means to confirm or disprove such claims exist (e.g. radar logs, satellite evidence), why would either side risk an outright lie that could be exposed?

Who’s lying — and more importantly, why? Is the goal simply to shape narrative momentum before facts can catch up? Are these statements made for internal audiences rather than international credibility?

I’m curious how others interpret such deliberate ambiguity. Can both sides be bluffing, or are we missing crucial pieces from third-party observers?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (8 children)

One side consistently blatantly lies. This isn't particle physics. One doesn't need to over think it.

Like if one's partner has cheated on then 40 times, it's a Saturday and they're not picking up their phone. You need to look at the whole history of the person (or country) when finding an answer.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (7 children)

How can someone lie so consistently? Lying is usually a tool for achieving short-term goals — a means to an end. But when a person or a side lies shamelessly, and their lies are so transparent that anyone can see through them with minimal effort, it raises a deeper question: what purpose does it serve to lie so openly, so repeatedly? Or is it a sign that truth no longer matters in the game they're playing?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Sorry for necro posting on a 4 day old thread, but I wanted to add my 2 cents. The point of lying consistently isn't for anyone to believe what they're saying (as you point out, truth just doesn't matter anymore, see Saddam's WMDs). The point of lying is that hegemonic power is capable of constructing social reality unilaterally and wielding the ability to construct reality to achieve political goals. A huge amount of things that are incredibly relevant to geopolitics, despite being falsifiable and objectively observable, are also possible to simulate through a performance. No bomb has to be planted in a stadium to evacuate the stadium if a bomb threat is called in, and all it takes to make a bomb threat is a phone; imagine what you can do with imperial hegemony!

This phenomenon is seen pervasively in times of crisis: the state will go out and defy reality, which performatively makes reality change in turn (see Biden declaring COVID over, Trump executive order defining trans people out of existence).

So, from a postmodernist perspective, even those who try to reject the reality that is being imposed, must still abide by it. That's what power is: it's not a single, centralized institution; it's actually a strategic situation where some powerful people construct a scenario where the powerless people have to accept their condition, because they understand be worse off if they resisted, at least as individuals.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)