this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
472 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39142 readers
2592 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Such a standard would require every response to include a whole historical account.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No... what are you talking about?

You said the escalatory actions were the Abraham accords, and moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

I just pointed those were both actions taken by the Trump administration.

So what requires a historical account? Do you mean you just want to site random historical events with no context, and if anyone points out when they happened, that's somehow a bad faith argument, or an unfair standard to apply...?

Oh my God... Did you really just read those "trigger events" in some article, have no idea what they actually were, or when they happened, but still decided to cite them in support of your argument...?