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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
My country is coward.
Which one and why?
USA because it took this many decades to merely abstain and and not veto.
They've been vetoing, the proper action would have been to vote to pass.
Abstaining has exactly the same effect.
Sends a different message though.
The best time to abstain would have been decades ago, but the second-best time is now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; this was a good choice.
Edit: The downvotes are hard to interpret. Do people think the US abstaining (and thus allowing the resolution to pass) was not a good choice?
Abstention is, by definition, the refusal to make a choice. And if you are not against oppression, then you favor the status quo.
That's not how it actually works, though. They knew that by not opposing it would result in the measure passing. Choosing to abstain is a choice.
No such thing as neutrality on a moving train. Don't be dense.
I'm not saying there is. Obviously not.
To be absolutely clear for those who for some reason still aren't understanding it at this point, choosing to abstain from voting on this resolution was the same as voting to support it. The US could have blocked this resolution and instead decided "no, we'll let this one through." Given that they could have blocked it but made a conscious decision not to block it, knowing that by not blocking it the resolution would pass, that was a decision in favor of this resolution.
What do people think I am saying, if not that?
Voting for it would have been "voting to support it," that must make sense to you, yeah?
Do you understand the political mess involved in the ties between USA and Israel? There's multiple factions whose support is conditional on WH supporting Israel. Biden isn't just negotiating with Netanyahu, he's negotiating with the rest of his own party and donors. He wouldn't be able to vote for in UN without consequences, like political factions and donors moving to R instead.
They chose a course of action that allowed the right thing to happen.
As I said above, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.