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
Notice that they never said anything about the religion, but question the ACTIONS of that synagogue before expending emotional energy.
And they didn't call for their deaths, they merely said that if they were one of the synagogues who are preaching hate then they won't care about their suffering, just as those people don't care about the suffering in gaza right now.
This shit is so common and so infuriating - "They laughed at his death because of his beliefs"
No, you are being disingenuous - "They laughed at his death because of his actions. he called for the death and suffering of many." is not the same thing at all.
?
You replied to my comment but none of your reply seems to relate to any of it, was it intended to be a reply to another comment, did you just assume what I had written, or did something get very lost in translation?
I didn't accuse the parent comment of targeting Jews, I referred to the killer as targeting Jews given the attack was on a synagogue on yom Kippur.
I never said they did, I specifically used the phrase "minimise" which I believe is appropriate when someone states religiously motivated killing is not worthy of care, arguably they made this conditional on the synagogue not preaching hate, but this feels like an incredibly thin justification, it was not mentioned anywhere in the article, I have not seen any evidence of widespread islamophobia in synagogues (googling variations on the phrase yields nothing). Raising this as far as i can tell only serves as a manufured justification to deny the severity of this act.
This is just confusing, the parts within quotation marks bear no resemblance to anything I wrote, even being charitable and assuming "You are being disengenous" is using the rhetorical "you" it still seems a mile off topic, maybe it refers to the discussion around Charlie Kirk?
This is the part of your comment I was referring to. That user never said anything about their religion. They said something about waiting to have information about their actions.
Conflating those two is easy, and effective at making those who judge others by their actions seem like religious bigots.
I had assumed it would be clear that I was ascribing religious motivation to the killer rather than the commenter. Especially as I clarified this in the thing you are now directly replying to.
Then I definitely misunderstood your intent. My Apologies.
My fury at the use of 'based on their beliefs' stands in general, but I apologize for ascribing that to your comment without first asking.
Fair, I can see how it would read in an ambiguous way from someone operating in a different context.