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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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
I don't understand your Hitler example, it does not seem to be an example that fits the saying. How is Trump good to Hitler's perfect? Or is it the reverse? Either way doesn't make sense to me. Normally that saying is used in a context where someone is potentially getting some of what they actually want, because getting all of what they want is not feasible, and continuing to pursue all of what they want risks them not getting anything they want. In your example you seem to be using it like it means you get a choice of either a negative outcome or a worse negative outcome, which is not correct.
Trump is "good" because he's not as bad as Hitler was. Therefore, we should be glad to have him despite him not being "perfect." I'm not sure what's unclear about that.
These two statements mean the exact same thing.
Trump hasn't sent millions of Americans to the gas chamber (the "good"), and that's better than the alternative right? If you put any value in this expression then how could you possibly disagree with this?
As long as a worse possibility exists or can be imagined, this saying can be used to justify quite literally anything, which is why it's completely worthless outside of trying to make your opponent seem unreasonable in an argument regardless of the topic.
Those two statements do not mean the exact same thing. Trump being less shitty than Hitler doesn't make Trump good, you are definitely misunderstanding the saying. It's about trying to achieve goals, and the importance of knowing when you've maximized the achievement possible without ruining your chances of achieving the goal by pressing further. It doesn't mean "I can imagine something worse, therefore this terrible choice I do not want is now alright with me".
And in a scenario where the two outcomes are Trump or Hitler, Trump is the good achievement as that means millions of people don't get murdered and the country is better off thereby maximizing progress toward our goal.
It sounds like you're starting to understand the point. Newsom being less shitty than Trump doesn't make Newsom good either, yet here we are being told that he is despite their shared ideologies simply because he has a (D) next to his name instead of an (R). "Vote blue no matter who."
Yet that's precisely how it's being used.