After checking this website and other, I have found that these claims come from Radio Free Asia and others citing these so I am not sure. Haven't found good sources talking about this.
Source: https://moderntokyotimes.com/new-president-of-iran-linked-to-past-executions-of-communists-socialists-and-others/
The election result in Iran for a new president is a grim reminder that ultra-conservative Shia power concentration is in full swing. This concerns the new president being linked to the mass executions of 1988. These executions exceeded several thousands of people – some site tens of thousands – when the Iranian ultra-conservative clergy sought to crush all dissent. Hence, the electoral success of Ebrahim Raisi is bound to raise questions internationally.
Is this true or can I safely dismiss it?
Then yes you can dismiss these claims with prejudice.
As the Citations Needed saying goes, "the atomic unit of propaganda isn't lies, it's emphasis."
You can't dismiss facts just because they come from a propaganda outlet; that's contrarianism, not analysis. You want to be able to explain to people why propaganda outlets aren't reliable, and much of the time the explanation lies in what they omit, not the accuracy of what they do report.
I didn't dismiss anything, I refused to entertain it at all. Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place.
RFE is not entitled to any "analysis".
That's something that's just a tautology, it doesn't need explanation.
Lol you dismissed it, those are your words.
If RFA reports XYZ, and you say "oh I'll just dismiss this because it's misinformation," but XYZ happens to be factually accurate, why would you expect people to listen to what you say? You're wrong, RFA is right, at least at first blush. Yes, it takes effort to properly call bullshit.
Lol indeed. You were talking about specific facts. I was dismissing the entire publication outright, unread.
No I say that I refuse the acknowledge or spend any effort in entertaining a publication with such a poor reputation.
Indeed. Entirely my point. You played yourself Mr lol.
Debate pervert shit