Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@feddit.org - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
No, I want proof that kids are being forced into these things by their parents and don't, you know, believe in their religion. Because if it's the latter then freedom of religion (and, you know, freedom in general) should allow them to out whatever they want on their faces and heads. What mandate does the government have to infringe on the freedom of children and parenrs in this way?
So, religious indoctrination? Because kids are so qualified to be figuring out what mystical stuff they believe in at the age of 9. I'm all for religious freedom for adults, you're free to worship whatever you like. I'm against brainwashing kids into religion via family the moment they're born. Give them a chance to figure it out for themselves.
Even setting aside religion, every tradition or cultural value is an example of indoctrination. The logical conclusion of your position is that kids not only shouldn't be raised to he believe in anything, but also that the government has a right and duty to intervene to prevent kids from being raised to believe in things. After all, if kids shouldn't be raised to believe in religion, why should they be raised to believe in human rights? Why should they be taught that hurting people is bad? There's no self-consistent logical framework that would allow one to single out religion in this manner. Hell, more specifically on the matter of clothing, why is indoctrinating girls into wearing burkas bad but indoctrinationg them into wearing skirts not?
Most traditions or cultural values don't demand belief, unlike religion.
Because we as a society have decided that these are the values we wish to protect and propagate. We have made no such decisions with regards to religion, in fact likely the opposite.
I just pointed one out.
Nobody's advocating indoctrinating them into wearing skirts. I don't see anybody protesting them wearing pants or w/e.
But plenty do. Everything from "this is how dish A should be eaten" to "leave your shoes at the door" to "we should be nice to our parents" is a belief, even if there's no mysticism behind it. Are you going to arrest parents for teaching their kids that dessert is supposed to be eaten after dinner?
So parents should only be allowed to teach rightthink, and the state has a duty to use its monopoly on violence to intervene whenever parents attempt to teach children wrongthink (wrongthink being anything other than what the state, representing society, has deemed as rightthink). You just trampled all over freedom of thought and conscience with that statement, and PS: Fascists can use the exact same line of thought to ban pride flags and minority cultures.
Yeah you're gonna have to back that one up with numbers.
You did not. You gave no logical framework that justifies state violence in cases of religion and doesn't justify it in cases of non-religion. Your response to me pointing out that believing in God and believing in human rights can both be affected by your position was "but one is rightthink so it's fine," not any kind of logical distinction.
In many societies schoolgirls are, in fact, expected or forced to wear skirts rather than pants for school (see: Japan), and as for the rest: Why do women wear women's clothing rather than men's clothing if not for cultural indoctrination? Why do men not wear skirts and tank tops if not for cultural indoctrination?
They're a belief. They don't DEMAND you belief in them, else go to hell / get isolated by your family.
Is anybody discussing arrest in the current situation? You're pulling a classic reductio ad absurdum.
This is not an attempt to ban parents passing their religion on to their kids, it's merely preventing them from doing so in school, and giving some children potentially their only taste of gender equality that they'll receive before they turn 18.
You've made a lot of claims yourself, feel free to back them up any time.
We're not talking 'many cultures'. We're talking about Sweden, and last I checked they did not force girls to wear skirts. For the record I'm against forced uniform segregation by gender.
That is blatantly untrue. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_piety#Developments_in_modern_society. People of any culture will react negatively when cultural values or traditions they hold dear are ignored or disrespected by their children. This is why homophobia is still going strong in predominantly atheists societies like China and Japan, for example.
Yes, that's the point. The only difference between banning niqab in schools and my example is extent; fundamentally they're both using state violence to enforce conformity in child rearing, which is bad no matter how much or little of it you do.
So only rightthink should be practiced at schools? There is no qualifier you could add to this idea that won't make it fucked up, because imposing rightthink via state violence is bad no matter where you do it.
If you can only respond with "no u," you should really reevaluate your position. Also I'll back up any claim you want me to, but you'll need to be more specific than that.
First this is Finland in the OP. Second, you ignored the second half of that part.
Holy shit the amount of bad rhetoric you've gotten into one comment.
Thats sort of impressive.