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 is exactly this. You attack "the left" and "liberals" as though they are the same thing (they very much are not) without mentioning anything specific, so it's hard for me (the left; not a liberal) to defend any position. I suspected a bunch of implied strawman fallacies was hidden behind this hand-waving and frankly I think this is a cowardly way to argue your point. So let's do the bullet points.
"From the river to the sea" is not a blatant anything. Yes, it has been used by Hamas, but it has also been used by Likud, for basically the opposite meaning. Therefore context must be absolutely appropriate in the understanding of the intent of the words. If a person or group who are in favour of Palestinian sovereignty and/or a single-state solution use the phrase, you can quite fairly assume that they are talking about this issue, rather than calling for the extermination of an ethnic group. It's dishonest in the extreme to label anyone who calls for Palestinians to be free an antisemite. As for the other phrase you mentioned, it seems like you are saying anyone who mentions an intifada is antisemitic. That seems ridiculous, and possibly you need to give more context.
Israel is an apartheid regime. It is a settler colonial project. It meets these definitions, and either you're for settler colonialism or you're against Israel in its current manifestation.
The reason you've not heard about other states doing other things is because we are talking about Israel, and the ways in which Arabic people are opressed there. The mistreatment of Jewish people in other places at other times does not pardon or imply permission for the mistreatment of Arabs anywhere.
It's not about being "progressive coded". It's context, again. If a group's aim is to restore human rights for people, and/or oversee equality then any accusation of racism should be considered with this context. Conversely, an organisation which has historically made horrific racist/homophobic statements should be considered differently in the same scenario. Again, it's hard to pinpoint exactly which groups and which incidents you are talking about, as you give no examples.
Lol, every fucking time. The initial question was in bad faith, the response has misinformation, and there's always some nonsense moral implication. Yet if I just didn't respond there would be someone commenting something along the lines how "it's pretty telling" I don't engage with this crap.
"This crap" being a rational take. It seems like you've made your mind up, and any contrary viewpoint be damned.
Side note: it's a bad faith argument to attach everyone to some arbitrary group, fail to define that group, and then attack it.
There is absolutely nothing I could show you that could change your mind. You phrased your original comment as a good faith question, but in reality you were trying to give yourself ammunition to attack me with.
Your take isn't even rational. If I thought there was any chance of you changing your mind, I would go through your comment detail by detail showing what arguments you have that are wrong, where you twisted my words, and what claims you avoided.
You'd just respond with more bullshit and more bad faith arguments, until I eventually lost my temper. Arguing with someone like you is a complete waste of time.
I haven't once argued in bad faith. You, on the other hand have essentially forbidden any criticism of Israel whatsoever, made no arguments except those where you attack me (hint: this is called an ad hominem fallacy) and continuously hand-waved without actually stooping so low as to tell me where I'm wrong; you just claim that I am but you can't be bothered to say why/how.
Bonus points for your "I know you are but what am I" on the subject of open-mindedness.
If this is you at your coolest, I guess if you were to actually lose your temper we'd just get an incoherent string of characters as repeatedly you smash your keyboard into your face to make a point.
Okay man, believe what you want to believe. I've already wasted enough time on you.
Maybe if you had used it constructively instead, by, say, making any coherent point whatsoever? Then we wouldn't be here would we.