World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
"BOTH SIDES!" say both the MAGAs and leftists in unison.
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure the Democrats would not have supported Israel in Iran, same as how they didn't support Israel in Yemen, or in Lebanon, or in Gaza, or in Syria, or in...
If Kamala had won, I (trans latina) would not have had to flee the US. But they're both the exact same amirite? (I'm honestly a little grateful for that. The US is trash. I'm never moving back)
Edit: my point is that people are literally fleeing the US because it's a sinking ship. Under Kamala, immigration and tourism wouldn't have changed much
"I would be alright".
...Here's a thought exercise for you: The year is 2028, Trump is running for a third term, and the Dem ticket is... IDK, Newsom/Buttigieg or whatever, and the big thinkers of the DNC have come up with a foolproof plan to steal away MAGA voters: they will agree with exterminating trans people, but! BUT! will firmly, and I mean FIRMLY stand behind gay marriage. And you're trying to explain that both of those choices are unacceptable to you, and in response are met with an avalanche of mockery because "sure, yeah, one side wants gay marriage banned, but they’re both the exact same amirite?"
Seriously, though, best of luck. Not to assume stuff about your situation, but getting out sooner rather than later sounds like a good move.
Here’s a thought exercise for you:
Try it for a fucking change.
You're doing the leftist reductive thing so complex issues become a simplistic "it's all the system, man..."
This doesn't make you look as clever as you think it does. It'll eventually turn you into a conspiracy nut where everything is because of "them". Please make an effort to stay on topic.
Do you deny that Iran is committing genocide. Then you're the genocide denialist!
Or maybe we shouldn't weaponize the word genocide and discuss serious issues like adults instead of playing word games?
We're reading wikipedia now?
Here's some nice light reading on wikipedia for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
Yeah pretty much. Which is a little disturbing because with the waters so muddied, it makes it difficult to know when these things are really happening.
It's already a problem when you say a country is fascist because the reply is often "well people call everything fascist now." And they aren't wrong.
Soon it will be "people call everything a genocide now." The power of these words are getting diluted by attention seekers. It's becoming a word that no longer grabs attention anymore.
Oh, it's not the "system, man", it's you. As in, you, @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca, personally. You are the exact person I'm thinking about when I say this, and it's frankly amazing you decided to throw your hat in ring here, while simultaneously defending attacks on Iran elsewhere.
I don't understand how anyone could be so blatant about their own mental gymnastics.
Are you not aware of the treaty? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
Or are you not aware that Obama won the Noble Peace Prize?
Or maybe you just don't have a sense of humour so you think a joke about Obama getting the Nobel Prize before doing the treaty is "mental gymnastics"?
Ah, sorry a lot of folks here are getting a bit wacky with apologia, and I could see them actually putting forward the nobel peace price as an argument for Obama not being a war criminal, so I did take it a bit too seriously. Poe's law I guess. My apologies!
That said, he is a war criminal though, and I feel like you're cherry picking little bits out of all the presidencies to confirm your point.
Here's an example in the other direction, maybe it'll help you see how unconvincing an argument you're making:
You'll note that I omitted Bush. He was really bad. Like, Hitler bad. Not a redeeming quality about him.
At any rate the point is that every single president since Eisenhower, every single one, no exceptions, has been a war criminal, and pretending that any one of them was pro peace is a joke.