this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
127 points (99.2% liked)

Not The Onion

18089 readers
1559 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The movements of Iranian diplomats are severely limited in New York, but one proposal being floated would bar them from shopping at big, members-only wholesale stores like Costco and Sam’s Club without first receiving the express permission of the State Department.

So, still insane but a lot less than the article title implies.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

They want to stop people from coming into our country and buying products we sell here... Of course that's insane. That's exactly what any country should want if they believe in capitalism/global markets. Money coming into your economy is like the entire point of these tarrifs MAGA believes in. The only way they make sense is if you ignore logic and just say we want our money spent here and limit how much of our wealth gets spread to other countries. Within a global market for one country to be rich, others must be poor really. Exports > Imports = country getting richer. This limits exports, "because we don't like them.". It really shows they don't give a fuck about the companies making money either, hate Trump's all.

Granted it's just a tiny impact because there are so few of them.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

None of this is about logic or even common sense. It's all petty vindictiveness.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's extremely normal for host countries to impose restrictions on the activity of diplomats - hostile or no. US diplomats basically require an escort just to leave the embassy in Russia, for example, and all countries restrict potentially contentious visits (like some diplomats visiting war memorials, as has happened recently in Korea/Japanese politics). But this is an absurd escalation of that privilege for no other reason than trump's ego.

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Idk, your examples are the Korean/Japanese relationship and the Russia/non-Russia relationship. Those don't seem to be good standards for international diplomatic practices.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Those were examples with a similar degree of 'political baggage' as the USA/Iran political situation, hence why I chose them. It's a very complex topic that I encourage you to look into if you're curious about the specifics beyond what I presented in a two sentence lemmy comment.

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay but you said "this is normal" and "hostile or not". Then you go on to list examples of nations with strained relations where, I think, it's less surprising if they don't fully trust each other's diplomats - instead of an example where traditionally friendly nations do the same. I'm not sure what point you're making.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It’s extremely normal for host countries to impose restrictions on the activity of diplomats

That claim is independent of the examples I've already presented, that's pretty explicit. I never claimed to be trying to present the whole of the spectrum of diplomatic visa processes with those examples. But sure, if you want specific but less relevant examples of what these restrictions look like, I can do that:

  • Restrictions on driving (must have an escort when driving)
  • No ability to obtain general government ID issued by a host-country (Cannot get a UK passport or endorsed ID as a non-naturalized foreign consulate worker)
  • Restrictions on property ownership
  • Requirement to notify for changes in address or marital status (famously a bit of a sticky one..)
  • Requirement to behave "in a manner befitting a representative of state" (don't get caught with your dick out ~~too many times~~)
  • Disclosure requirements for monetary transactions over a given value
  • A lack of access to public funds or services (no foodstamps, in the UK's case free treatment from the NHS is negotiated)
  • Lack of ability to apply for permanent resident / green card / meet immigration residency requirements due to time accrued living in a country as part of a diplomatic visa
  • Exemptions to degrees of criminal prosecution (diplomatic immunity)

Etc.

It's pretty boring though, and really doesn't factor in to what's going on in the above. The entire objective of my comment was just to clarify that trump is not considering a ban on shopping at costco for all Iranians (which would be stupid even for this administration) but a change to the diplomatic visa agreement between the US and Iran to include retail restrictions for their diplomatic staff, which is dumb but a lot less dumb than the title of the article implies.

^(edit:^ ^clarity)^

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Fair, but they just wanted to buy a twelve pack of socks for $7.99. That's nothing like getting a government-issued ID or anything else on the list. Nothing like it.

It's just small-minded, tiny-handed fuckery from a pitiful incompetent deranged administration.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Nothing like it.

Okay, and that's why I didn't write that list initially: it's not useful to my initial point. I instead provided two examples of diplomatic restrictions from situations that are similar in political outlook, then called what trump is currently doing "an absurd escalation of that privilege for no other reason than trump’s ego."

He is not considering restricting all Iranians from shopping at costco (or "bulk goods / warehouse stores" to borrow what passes for their exact language), he is considering restricting the Iranian diplomatic visa holders from doing that. Since the title, while technically accurate, could be easily said to claim the former, I clarified. I don't disagree at all that this is fucking absurd, just less so than it could have been interpreted to be.

(A peace offering: consulate or embassy staff in the US often buy goods that cannot be supplied by their home country (food, linens, etc.) at these warehouse stores for safety reasons (this is how the whitehouse kitchen operates, too). Given the sales volume, the direct control the customer has over the product from the moment of selection and the sheer quantity of the stores that are available in a given urban area, it makes it infeasible for a product to have been tampered with prior to it reaching the diplomatic staff. By restricting access, Trump would create a massive logistical complication and threat vector for the Iranians)

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

still insane but a lot less than the article title implies.

I mean . . .

[–] Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago

We can't let them learn the secrets of our $4.99 rotisserie chickens!

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 2 weeks ago

The UN has to move all of its activities outside of America and somewhere with a written guarantee of not interfering in its mission.

[–] Wildmimic@piefed.social 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Welcome to Costco, I love you if you don't come from Iran

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Idiocracy is the best

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

You know it's not Costco banning them right?

What I would love Costco to do is to fill up several of their trucks filled with a portion of their inventory and drive it within walking distance to the UN so that Iranian diplomats can shop in the truck.

But I fear that a large truck driving up to the UN might cause the wrong reaction.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago

Can they at least get the hotdogs?

[–] kennedy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago

Such stores have been a favorite of Iranian diplomats posted to and visiting New York because they are able to buy large quantities of products not available in their economically isolated country for relatively cheap prices and send them home.

I mean don't you think they can just get someone else (who might already be here or a friend from another delegation) to do it for them?? I don't see how that'll stop anything it's just an extra step.