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
Not gonna lie, I don't think that I was mature enough at sixteen for my opinion to have mattered on a macro scale.
But do you think you cared more about the future than someone who is 70?
Is voting selfish reasons at 16 naturally better than someone doing the same at 80?
I agree, I probably didn't know enough at the time to make the most informed choice but I was definitely more idealistic, and I think that would have been a good thing.
Also, will there her more policy aimed at improving the lives of 16+ knowing they can vote.
I think the positives out way any downside.
Honestly no, I was a twat at sixteen. But I acknowledge that I'm speaking for myself.
I appreciate your honesty. I would have to say I was still a twat when I started to vote, and was for a long time after.
I agree, this guy was a twat!
I'm j/king. People change all the time, it's okay to acknowledge that.
You're speaking for yourself, me and more or less everyone I hung out with which back then was a decent sized social group. I was barely competent to vote at 18.
100% idiot at 16. No shame admitting it.
When my son turned 16 and my daughter was 18 I had that discussion with them, as I'm a supporter of being allowed to vote with 16.
My 16y old son was against it "Look at all my friends, they don't inform themselves and everyone would been voting for some shit party that promises something"
My answer to that is, most people do. "Being qualified" is not a condition for being able to vote. Yes, there's a line you cross when you grow up, a toddler obviously can't vote yet, an adult can.
But in the end it's arbitrary where you put that line and by moving it down to 16 you can "a bit" influence the relative large weight of older generations in elections.
When I vote, I'll have to live with the consequences for 30y in the best case before I'm worm food. For my kids the number is over 60y.
So regardless of "how qualified to vote" you are, moving down the election age changes the decision making to be of longer term and less of short term.
Most people aren't mature enough their entire lives, but we don't filter them out.
That's the shittiest part. Honestly some people don't deserve to vote, they just lack critical thinking
Let me guess most of those people don't agree with you... 😁
I'm moderate so definitely both sides hate me
Lol yeah you need to be in a trench throwing rocks at the other side, not being all sensible how dare you! 😁
Don’t worry, now teens have TikTok which they can source their information from, so we should be safe
Sure, but I want mature enough at 18 either. A lot of people aren't mature enough at 40 to fully comprehend what they're voting for. We don't enfranchise people with votes based on their level of knowledge though, we do it if they're considered active members of society - and 16 year olds are considered adults in a large amount of their day-to-day life
I know I wasn't mature enough, but if being well informed, politically conscious and sensible were a prerequisite for voting, we'd be living in a very different world. As far as I'm concerned, this is most likely to change things for the better.
I was the weird kid who was more politically informed than the average adult, but I'd read the newspaper daily since about 12 or so. Maturity IDK but there are many adults that are less mature than I was.
Braindead inbred fucks from the midlands who worship the Daily Mail as gospel can vote, so I'm not worried about the kids.
Im 60 this year and feel the same now. I don't know shit, so not sure i should be asked to vote.
I think being granted the right to vote at that age would have made me care enough to educate myself on some of the nuance. But I would also not describe myself as a typical meatbag.
Well good news, because the opinion of the electorate counts for shit in any case, whether they can vote or not.
At best we can choose the colour of the tie of the conservatives in charge.
In any case, a quick look at any town's "Spotted" Facebook page should be enough to convince you that most adults aren't really a lot more functional than teenagers. They're just better at hiding their insecurity. People on mine went crazy for Reform. Reform got in (Derbyshire County Council). Reform closed a local community centre. The response: Why have Labour done this?
As a normal person, all I can do is run to one side to try and balance the Titanic, but if it's going to sink, it's going to sink.