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
Parliaments have rules dictating behaviour for good reason. If they don't then discussion break down into chaos. So should they be punished? Absolutely.
The severity of that punishment depends on the type of haka and what was intended by it. In all the coverage I've seen no translation of what was said. A haka can be anything from expressions of joy to a declaration of war.
If the point was to intimidate or worse, then throw the book at her. Just as someone using intimidating or violent language would be ruled against. Doing it in a way specific to a particular culture does not get you protection.
If it was just a display of Maori culture at a poignant moment, expressing grief at the decision, then more leniency can be shown. However I doubt that's the case given the physical actions involved.
If I recall correctly it was in response to a bill that would nullify the treaty with the indigenous people. In my mind, trying to gut the agreement that you'll work together and respect each other instead of trying to kill each other is an act of war, any response less than killing people is being respectful.
Institutional violence is constant intimidation.
Nah you racist. This is her culture and he land and the cunts trying to pull bullshit will get Haka'd out of parliament
Fuck your decorum
In case you’re actually curious https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Mate
Thanks. That does give me more context. Not as bad as it could have been, but certainly has some venom in parts.
She has done this before. She knows Hakas gets attention. So she is aware of want she is doing.
I agree with you.
THATS THE PURPOSE
the fuck you mean she's aware of what she was doing? Fucking commie morons
The Maori party favour theatrics over results, and always have. One of the most notable examples, there was a motion in the house to change the dress code, which the speaker asked if anyone wanted to second. Nobody did.
The next day, one of their MPs was ejected from the house for not wearing a tie.
You're speaking of criticism of the party I don't care.
This woman did nothing wrong I don't care if it is theatrical, politics is theatrics.
You seem to have a very simplistic view of the world, and don't seem to be willing to take other points of view on board, so I don't see much point engaging with you any further.
And you seem to be a moron who thinks theatrics=bad for some unclear and likely absolutely asinine reason.
This woman did nothing wrong. You're just a little tool bag
Lol.
You misunderstood, you wank.
Begging for attention or doing something that is reasonable can be good. Getting attention by being disruptive and manipulative is the problem. Hence the fact they threw the book at her.
Knowing is one thing. Context and intent is another.
I am not a commie. You commie.
there's no difference but perspective you dope
They did this right before Parliament was set to vote, and managed to disrupt and delay said vote.
So yes, it was pretty bad.
The video is less than two minutes long