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
You're assuming way too much about everybody, including me.
Including you? I assumed you were opposed to voting for genocide, but still believed it made sense to accuse China of genocide. Could you please explain where I was wrong?
You assumed wrong.
My position on the Uyghurs in China is "I don't know for sure because the information space about this in the West is too poluted by propaganda". That is neither a "Yes", nor a "No", it's a "I'm not well informed enough to judge".
(It's funny because I'm a member of a small Leftwing party in my own country and during voting in the National Conference was one of the few people who would actually Abstrain on some votes - rather than always Approve or Deny - because I avoid taking a stand if I feel I don't know enough to have an informed opinion).
Mind you, I would like a proper and impartial Human Rights Court investigation on this to clear all the bullshit flying around and IF it is a Genocide, for it to be stopped and the guilty parts punished.
Okay, so then you aren't an exception to the rule and the venn diagram I described before continues to have no overlap.
If you'd allow me to clarify my point, I'm saying anyone who thinks China is committing genocide and is of voting age in the US and is commenting on political comments sections on the internet is going to vote for Israel to commit genocide. I don't think this is a controversial assumption.
I'm pretty sure there will be some who will refuse to vote or vote for an independent, hence not voting for Israel to commit Genocide. It's likely that some of those have come to believe that China too is commiting a Genocide.
I doubt it be a majority or even a significant minority, but there really is no physical or psychological reason that out of 240 million or so Americans of voting age there aren't some who fullfil all of those criteria you claim to be impossible to find together.
I think you're seeing some louder individuals commenting on political comments sections on the internet who talk about the "Chinese Genocide" and who talk about people having a duty to "vote Democrat to stop Trump" (hence de facto voting for Israel to commit genocide) and you think "they're all like data" whilst not noticing that lots of people make one kind of comment or the other kind of comment but not both.
(This is actual quite a common perceptual flaw for humans and why Science has such strict rules when conducting experiments: people tend to notice that which confirms what they already believe also tend to notice when something happens but NOT notice when something does not happen).
Mind you, if you had said "most people" I would tend to agree with you, but you instead used a word which means 100% of people ("anyone") and claims about people are almost never true for 100% or 0% of individuals in a large enough group.