A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/post/5420798
Paywall: https://archive.is/Lmry2
Israeli officials have signaled they do not intend to relinquish this territory. These areas, where the military has deployed, are considered “no-go zones” and Palestinians risk being shot if they approach.
Yeah, that is how it works. I don't fight against genocide because I think I'm going to win, I fight against genocide because I think it's evil. You may be OK with genocide, but I'm not.
Additionally, genocide is just 1 out of ~50 other things that I'm against, that Harris stood for. Why should I vote for a candidate that's proud to stand with the Cheneys? Or a candidate that wants to continue to be a "leathal fighting force"? Why should I vote for a candidate that thought bombing children was OK? Or a candidate that proudly stood behind a rapist?
Yes, I proudly stand against genocide, and all of those other things. Maybe the real issue is that the Democrats shouldn't run in favor of them.
No one here is rooting for genocide, I'm stating the obvious that you should make the best of a shitty situation rather than not. A great example of this is voting someone who stood behind a rapist instead of voting for someone that would lead to an actual rapist being the winner of the race. It's not good, but it's better.
By all means, try to vote both of these motherfuckers out when possible in primaries and midterms and special elections, but when it comes down to actual election day, and you only have two available options, you pick the best of the two instead of throwing your vote away, that is if you want to actually mitigate this shit storm as best you can instead of letting idealogical purity fuck you over even more.
Literally the Democratic leadership is. They're even doing more: they are funding it.
I agree it's better, but it's still not good enough for me to vote for. I understand why people held their nose and voted for Harris, but I was unwilling to do the same. We have different standards. I've seen the Democrats continuously fight against the policies that I want, and so I chose 'nah' over them. So did a lot of other people, so maybe they should incorporate that into their strategy next time.
I find this hilarious coming in support of a party who chose the ideological purity of genocide and money, instead of chosing a popular stance and winning the election.
I hope that you enjoy your moral superiority as you're rounded up by trumps gestapo.
I hope you enjoy your endorsement of genocide as you're rounded up by trumps gestapo.
I voted against the fascist, thank you very much.
Apparently, that was too hard for you.
Incorrect! I too, voted against the fascist. But I also voted against genocide, which was apparently too hard for you.