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
Ask Historians !askhistorians@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
Yep lets make statutes of this lady when this is done. They should burn down the leaders houses and cause them as much stress as humanity possible. Because they murder that poor woman. What about the landlord who just wanted to push her out so he can charge more rent? He should be dragged into the street over this.
Ok, i would rather prefer some swift legislation to prevent this from ever happening again and legal proceedings against those responsible (which would be hard to get a sentence for - i don't think they actually broke any laws, and making new laws and sentencing people after the fact is something we all don't want, i assure you of that).
But if that doesn't happen, i'm down with your solution too.
Every successful movement has had two wings. A reasonable, non-violent, and thoughtful wing that offers peaceful solutions, and a militant wing that's prepared to use less gentle means to demand change. Sin Fein would not have accomplished much without the IRA. Martin Luther King Jr. would have struggled to get concessions if Malcolm X and the Black Panthers didn't exist. Mandela, Gandhi, all of them exist in juxtaposition with a less restrained movement that we tend to minimize in the history books, because the powers that be don't approve of people knowing how the real sausage of political change works.
You want a peaceful resolution? Good! You are welcome and needed. But don't disparage the radical wing. Understand they too want justice. They are a necessary part of the movement as well. They are the implicit "Or Else" at the end of every call for justice.
This is why nonviolence is violence too. Nonviolent movements require their violent counterparts to put pressure on states.
And also, if a movement manages to get a reform passed, it is dependent on the state’s monopoly on violence to get it enforced. Don’t forget that the National Guard had to be deployed to actually desegregate schools in the South.
There is no such thing as a successful non-violent movement, and anyone who demands non-violence is carrying water for the oppressors.
I agree on that! But i refuse the way of thinking that the threat of violence has to be the first line of defense or offense.
Yeah sure, violence should not be the first thing you try. But it's more effective if you are perceived as being capable of violence when you are standing up to oppressors who are doing violence to you.
It's also effective if i am capable of unleashing a biological agent on my adversaries. Should that be the standard? Because that is very easily achieved these days with everything you can buy from a supermarket, see bacillus cereus as an easy example - cook some rice, let it stand at 27°C for a few days and distribute it to your enemies. That's one of the nice examples that (probably) wont kill your enemies.
The threat of violence - which is fucking easy even for single individuals nowadays if they want to - should NOT be the primary reason to engage in diplomacy.
I think you're misconstruing what I'm trying to say. This article says it much better: https://www.grassrootsthinking.com/nonviolence-is-violence-too-somebodys-gotta-die/
I have to disagree with that article on multiple things. For starters, I have to (again) put here that I always agreed with the initial premise that violence is a valid way if nonviolent ways are not working.
This is the thing i really want to put up here as an inhumane fallacy, making human lives something to be played with. This is simply not true - the first is a preparation step for the worst case, the other one is an active, violent transgression against human life. Lord Farquaad would be proud.
And the whole article disenfranchises every step humanity has made towards progress through negotiation without bashing in skulls. I can't even...
As I said, I fully support violent uprising against conditions that are not fixable in other ways or that are causing comparable harm in the populace. But this agitation piece is fucking propaganda for violence outside of what is reasonable in a functioning democracy.
You are missing the point that violence is already being done to the oppressed. When the author says digging a grave is no more violent than filling one, he is talking about your body filling that grave, not your oppressors. "Inflicting harm is no more violent than receiving it." When you are already being harmed, there is no moral high ground to refusing to harm the oppressor.
I am not missing that point, i am putting it in perspective. And i completely disagree with your assumption regarding who is filling that grave - it is very much being presented as filling these graves with the bodies of your political enemies.
Is raising a rent the same as causing bodily harm? In some cases, i might be tempted to agree. But if we are not wanting to go down the road of teeth for teeth, eye for eye, we have at least to give the democratic process a good chance to try to fix the issues.
Democracy isn't perfect, and most states institutions aren't either. I fully accept this premise. But using an ideological background that makes us dig the grave and then fill it because it is essentially the same is very much fucked up.
As i said, i am down with @fredselfish@sh.itjust.works 's solution if a peaceful way is not found. Don't paint me as disparaging because i prefer talking before shooting. Any movement that prefers shooting over talking has to be shunned from the start, because it will only beget more violence even when the opposition might be ok with talks to come to a solution. All of your examples were on the side of "talking first".
Edit: Anyone downvoting this is advocating for hurting people before discussing things. I am astounded that we have people thinking like this here.
No, it doesn't. Without them, your talk is just noise, easily dismissed. It's absolutely necessary for some to follow their conscience and keep their hands clean, but if no one is getting their hands dirty then it doesn't achieve anything.
They were. But they always made sure to qualify their denouncements of violence with an understanding of the righteous rage of the more aggressive activities of the less restrained wing. Centre the motivations, not the actions.
You represent one part of a bigger whole. Both parts are necessary. Neither by itself is sufficient.
Anyone starting to shoot before talking is just a fucking terrorist and not someone you can negotiate with. Another Edit: this is true regardless of which side we are talking about.
You are sullying the sacrifices of the people who were deeply committed to put talks before violence with your utterances. There are many things you can achieve before killing your opposition, even when you do not have to means to do that at all.
I agree that resisting violently is needed in some cases. But preferring the violent case over the diplomatic one is the way you get long-term guerilla warfare and countless civilian victims that do not deserve to be wound up in your "righteous crusade".
Diplomatic measures should ALWAYS be the first line of defense and offense. If everything else fails, go ahead and set the barricades on fire. But if you advocate towards violence before the civil way of doing things is exhausted, you are no better than any of those bastards people are fighting against.
Edit: I also want to emphasize that getting ready for a violent confrontation is not something i want to discourage. But the important discriminating factor is which of your cards you keep playing the most, and when you play them. Just playing the "violence" card is not better than anything the nazis have done.
2nd Edit: Really? The violent cowards downvoting me better give me some good reason why shooting first is the way to go.
In general, almost no one starts shooting without trying to talk first. The difference between you and the guy who is "rushing" to more extreme measures, is usually that their experience has left them far more cynical about the chances of talk achieving anything without actions to back it up. Every cynic is ultimately a disillusioned idealist who has seen too many failures of discourse to produce results. There's a difference between a psychopath who engages in violence for the thrill of it, and someone who has reached the end of their patience while people die around them. There is no matter in which you are either the first or the last word on, and you are disrespecting everyone who has been in the fight for these causes before you could string two coherent words together. Today's battles are just the latest front of a war that is older than living memory.
Throwing the "T" word around is just a rhetorical, thought terminating cliche at this point. When states are charging people with "Terrorism" for possessing reading material, that word has lost all meaning. Using the phrase "Department of War" is a terrorist act. The existence of a military and the implicit threat of force is a terrorist act. My breakfast preferences are almost certainly terrorism for some people. When everyone is a terrorist, no one is.
I agree that the difference is mainly one of how much hope someone has. I still believe in the capability of most humans to come to a favorable solution when stakes are high.
I also insist on exactly this view being the most important thing to prevent atrocities, unneeded violence, and long-term conflicts with a bunch of civilian victims caught in the crossfire.
A Terrorist in my view is someone who resorts to violence when other venues of reaching goals are realistically open. For example, i would not consider Hamas an terrorist organization - Palestinians do not have any recourse left outside of violently resisting.
But for renting Spaniards, there are a lot of political and diplomatic pathways still available that have not been used for now! The legislation that did not go through because of the (fucking) separatists and conservatives will be simply pushed through in the temporary administration before the next votes, and these parties will get their receipt for shitting on the needs of the common people.
Someone advocating for violence in this situation is a fucking r* (my foreign language mind does currently not provide me with a similarily powerful word that would fit the bill, you are welcome to supply me some, thanks in advance), because it will turn the public opinion against the interests of the common people, and on top of that people that do not deserve that will get hurt (and yes, that even includes cops, even if i despise them)
Using the term Terrorist is only a though terminating cliche if you use US standards.
Most of the French would certainly beg to differ on the matter of where to draw the line in the sand. If you're waiting until you're standing in rubble on the inside of a cage with guard towers to decide it's time to act, you are not going to get very far. You may be willing to be a martyr, but lecturing everyone who isn't is not productive. You want to prevent unnecessary loss of life, focus on curing the disease, not clutching your pearls about the symptoms. Spaniards do in fact have many political and diplomatic pathways to move forward. So use them and don't worry about policing those who break ranks. You want to tell people you think violence is premature when the question is asked? That's fine, but always bring your attention and others' back to what brought someone to chose it in the first place, because no sane person chooses violence lightly and there's only so many psychopaths on Earth (and we all know which side of this they tend to fall on).
While the system functions, those who act on their own will be dealt with according to the law, as they should be. Policing the tone of those who you otherwise stand with is a distraction that only serves to divide you. You can be on the team that that chooses peace, but it is absolutely not necessary to waste your time on respectability politics. The opposition certainly ~~did~~ don't, and tying your own hands when they have already dropped the gloves serves no purpose.
This is why i also said preparing for violent struggle is not the same as actively pouring oil into the fire. There's nothing wrong with preparing for the worst. But advocating (NOT preparing!) for violence when so many paths are still open is begging for unneeded casualities on both sides. This has nothing to do with tying your own hands, it has to do with how humane you want to be. Do you want to be as inhumane an CEO deciding to raise rents beyond whats reasonable? If you do not care about loss of life or limb - go ahead! and fuck you all the same, just as they can get fucked, because they left they humanity behind, and you did just the same.
I ultimately think your heart is in the right place, but your focus is misguided. It's not pouring oil on the fire to recenter the conversation around the issue that is fuelling the rage. You're not going to find much success appealing to the better angels of the corpos. They've made their decision. I don't want to see anyone hurt, but the natural consequences of their inhumanity, is retribution in kind. Protecting them from the consequences of their own actions is as good as permission to escalate. I will mourn for those who are hurt in the crossfire, but they need to know where this ends and there's no clearer way to remind them the cost of playing with fire than to let them get burned. I will not encourage violence, and I will continue to work to fix the problem by advocating for reasonable housing accommodations. But I'm not going to restrain those who have been pushed past their limits. The rights of free men and women are paid for in blood, and they always have been. I don't have to like it. But not liking the price, doesn't mean it doesn't have to be paid.
When I was a boy, my grandfather taught me to hunt. When I took my first buck, there were tears streaming down my face. After the buck was dead, my grandfather didn't yell at me for crying, he knelt down with me and he said a prayer of thanksgiving over it. He didn't tell me to "man up and get over it", he told me to never get comfortable with taking a life, any life. It might be necessary, that buck fed our family for months, at a time when meat from the grocer would have been too much of a luxury. But you should never let yourself get numb to what it cost, either the deer, or you. I don't believe in gods or bibles these days. I still say a prayer after every kill, and it still hurts.
I won't tell you to numb yourself to the cost. I won't ask you to cheer for blood. I will ask you to look away and keep your eye on doing whatever you are able to make sure no one ever feels their only path forward is violence again. Understand what brought them to that point, cure the disease and let the symptoms run their course. Symptoms aren't directly caused by the disease. They're the body's natural defences. Sometimes they will get carried away and you need to rein them in, but they serve a purpose.
Recentering has nothing do with violence per se, and i do not think appealing to corpos is going to change things by itself. But we have civil institutions in Europe that can be an vent for all of this aggression without causing bodily harm. I believe that democracy can enact meaningful change without physically harming people.
I have never killed an animal larger than a fly, and i would never do that outside of a fight to the death, because i realized the sanctity of life. Nothing can give it back, and nothing can be gained by senselessly spilling blood. I am also an atheist - religion is a socially accepted delusion for me, and should be treated like any mental illness to release humanity from this cycle of insanity society has been caught in thousands of years ago.
I am sorry that you were indoctrinated to make it ok to kill random animals for your gain.
And how well are those working right now? How's the resistance to spiralling authoritarianism going in France, in Germany, in most European countries? How are your institutional outlets holding up to Russian and American propaganda? Because I know here in Canada it sure isn't sunshine and roses. Sometimes you have to remind the right wing that the system protects them, as much as it protects us so they quit undermining it.
Not the point, but unless you're a vegan, I'm just more honest about it. Also, the ritual isn't about faith, it's a frame of mind. The point of the story was that there is a whole world of difference between not caring about life, and accepting that life is messy and sometimes ugly and choosing to do the least harm for the greatest good is the kindest choice you can make.
My general point was that standing back and letting a little selective violence leak through can be enough to remind everyone what the stakes are, and can prevent a lot more violence down the road. Demonstrating that you aren't so lost in bureaucracy that you've forgotten how to hit back quells a lot of ambitions and saves lives in the long run.
you think the talking hasn’t been started yet? you think we don’t see all this talk and know it changed nothing? there has not been a “starting to shoot before talking”. time is running out, and now it’s time to make listening much more appealing then it obviously is now.
The talking has started, and the first vote did not get the needed result. Now they are heading into a re-election, and the administration during this period will push that legislation through without even needing the votes of the right/conservative parties if you followed the news enough. Just because the first round of negotiations does not give you the result you want, there is no need for starting violence against your political adversaries.
In fact, your thinking would be well placed in the Kremlin or similarily undemocratic institutions. Go fuck yourself. I do not converse with authoritarian fucks.
this is not the first nor the second not the third time around this this little game. and this will fail just like all the rest. we are at the ‘show results, not progress’ levels of fucking around
Can you guarantee that? are you willing to bet the lives of innocent people on that?
If you can do the first (hint: you can't), fine by me. If you are willing to do the second, you are no better than the people you are fighting against.