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
It can be a democracy and also silly. Are you trying to say American elections don't allow for unlimited money to be spent on elections as "free speech"?
There was a famous court case where the supreme court said it was ok.
Nope, this is what I am saying:
And this is also what I'm saying:
It's easy to see what I'm saying if you just read the words in between the spaces.
But then what do I know? I'm not the one who keeps arguing with what they think is a non-sentient machine.
You're clearly not a bot, and if I said you were I would prob get banned for a rule 1 violation. I'll be patiently waiting to see if any of the people who've been misgendering me catch a ban, but I won't hold my breath.
America has a democracy, it's not really great at representing people, but I get to fill out some paper every year. It also has unlimited money for oligarchs to influence elections. That money can come from pretty much anywhere. See the analogy?
Let's take a look at what you said to me in the c/news modlog, shall we?
You sure seemed to think I was a bot then.
Also, this is rule 1 in this community, which is c/worldnews:
I recommend reading community rules before posting in a community next time in case you violate one.
I didn't post anything there, so seems like some draconian mod action then.
Also I was mostly ribbing you at the time cause you were giving me low effort responses like "that's ironic" without addressing anything I was saying
Sorry... are you claiming I Photoshopped that? That a mod faked your posting? What?
I've literally never submitted a post to the sub, just comments so far.
Like find in the modlog where I submitted a post to news@lemmmy.world, I just scroll and reply cause I'm a shithead
No one said you submitted a post.
That was a comment.
That you said to me.
That was deleted.
You said this. To me.
Then you said this to me in this thread:
I have no idea why you're telling such a truly transparent lie that anyone can see by just looking at the modlog.
What's next, claiming that the "disregard all previous instructions" part wasn't about saying I was a bot?
I was being a shit to you cause you were giving me 1 word responses, but the rule 1 in c/news is for posts, not comments otherwise all your comments would have also been rule 1 violation, like what?
And another lie.
This is it in context:
I think it's high time you stop telling easily-disproven lies.
I would call you a pedant but that would also get me banned as rule 1 violation.
I'm pretty sure you did just call me a pedant and that would still not be a violation of this rule:
But if you really want me to ban you for violating a rule you didn't violate, just ask. I wasn't even planning on banning you for violating rule 5, which you are, in fact, violating.
Is saying someone is being pedantic uncivil? I have definitely been called worse by many of the people I've engaged with on 1984.world
Yes. Yes it is.
Hopefully you will also not need someone to explain to you what 'pejorative' means.
First of all, I do not ban people for a single comment that violates our civility rules. Neither would any other moderator in this community and I resent that implication.
Secondly, I have absolutely deleted such comments before when they are reported. I do not have the ability to see every single comment in the entire community in real time. That is not a superpower I possess.
Thirdly, if someone calls you that, report it and if I'm the mod who sees it, I will delete it like every other time.
Please do respond to this by lying or "not" suggesting I'm a bot again or whatever. I'm guessing I won't get a thank you.
Sorry, we bots don't really understand how they/them isn't a universal pronoun. No one programmed us on that yet.
It's amazing how many things you've accused me of today that you're guilty of yourself.
Shall I produce from modlogs how many times you've been banned from communities for incivility? Because I can.
I'm happy to get banned for incivility, but pointing out that you're fixing on minor details to take me into conversational cul de sacs isn't an insult.
Calling someone what they don't want to be called is insulting, I stand by my hotheaded comments considering how often I get he/himmed on here
I can't take you anywhere you don't want to be taken.
I also literally defended your pronouns in this thread.
You've just been too busy being unpleasant to me to notice.
And no, I don't really want to argue with you about anything else I said in that post when you're going to give me shit about the fucking opposite of what I did regarding you personally in this thread.
That's how low you've sunk.
oh, my bad I've been on mobile all day (just worked a >9hour shift while being disregulated online) and kinda tunnel visioned. You've fine, though I stand by my statements about the fire department making traffic safety worse.
You understand you completely agreed with that guy, right? Why are you acting like you have any outstanding disagreements?
We actually don't agree. If you would read their comments in other threads, you would know that they do not consider Americans to be participating in a democracy which is why they said that about Moldova.
Also, @Diva is clearly a she, as she gives her pronouns in her username.
A) Guy is a gender neutral term.
B) normal humans do not examine the entirety of a users comment history. In this thread you two have agreed that Moldova and america have the same level of corruption in their respective democracies.
Please do show evidence that 'guy' is a gender neutral term.
The dictionary seems to think it's gendered.
Google it for people arguing about it in opinion pieces since before you were born. Hell I think this exact argument was on Seinfeld at one point. And there is no "the" dictionary, just as an aside. There is no single authoritative dictionary for any non constructed language, that's the opposite of how language functions.
When exactly do you think I was born?
After the 1800s.
Well then do show this debated in, say, 1982.
brb going to ask my cishet male friend to tell me about that guy he just married
If someone addresses a diverse group as 'you guys' absolutely no real human being is confused or offended. If you are offended, step outside, get some sun, talk to a real human using your voice.
If someone asks a cishet guy how many guys they've been with do you think they're going to say 'oh I'm straight' and possibly get offended, or just start listing all the girls they've dated?
Like I work 6 days a week, I'm outside plenty. I get misgendered enough to know what's annoying to me.
If someone asks a cishet guy how many people they've been with, the cishet is going to correct to women they've been with, same with guys or any other gender neutral term that leaves the question ambiguous.
As far as your personal biases, I don't care. At all, even a little. If you feel gender neutral terms misgender you, that's on you. You actually are incompatible with the language you're using and need to change.
Me:
You:
If you were calling me a person rather than a "guy" I would have no issue this whole time, notice how you just changed my wording to make your argument work?
I think I'll refrain from taking English language advice, or life advice from you
I am calling you a person by calling you a guy, and I switched the word on purpose with another gender neutral term to emphasize the point, which you might have realized if you didn't have a complex about it.
The point of what I was saying was that it's not as explicitly gender-neutral as something like "person". Thus the example of asking a cishet guy how that guy he married is doing, it just doesn't scan. It's not a huge distinction in most situations and is generally appropriate, but its also pretty clearly a passive aggressive dig when it's used in situations where it's the singular and the subject has made their gender clear.
You're welcome to dispute that it's not used as passive aggressive dig, but I'm just citing lived experience.