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
Dude, Hermoso herself said it was non consensual. How can you justify suing HER since it happened to HER. Do you know what she was thinking?
He said it was.
She said it wasn't.
Who do we believe, and based on what?
The victim, bases on the obvious fucking evidence
Like what? Please enlighten me with specifics.
My point is, people here pretend as if they know everything what has truly happened. While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment (or do we?). I do not justify anything, never claimed I was justifying anything.
Certainly he can he an ''POS'' but I don't know. I don't know him that much, do not follow him and do not know him personally.
You can see that he kissed her on the lips and she said she didn’t want or consent to that. What more evidence do you need? Do you think she is lying?
Yes, we can see he did that. Yes, she said that afterwards. She showed no signs of it at that moment.
I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m saying that the people on here pretend to know everything.
Personally, I’m curious how this goes. What more evidence I want? Nothing. Don’t think there’s more unless we can actually get a video with sound where we hear what both of them say.
So you don’t want any more evidence. So you either believe her or you think she’s a liar. Which is it?
I gave you my answer to that already.
Yes, you believe the abuser caught in video but you’re too much of a coward to admit it outright.
Another one making it personal. Seem certain people cannot have a decent argument without becoming personal.
If your argument has no basis in fact, it must come from your personal values.
If that’s what you believe, that’s alright. I won’t comment to you any further.
No. You didn’t. You said “I’m not saying she’s lying”. That’s not the same.
Do you believe her statements or do you think she’s lying?
Honestly? I don’t know what to believe. She could’ve as what was called “spontaneous agreement” and later on regretted and now saying she doesn’t want it.
Or she did not want it from the start but again how should I know when - I was not there to hear it?
I can say “I believe her” and then I’d be wrong. I can say “I don’t and believe the guy” and be wrong. Doesn’t change a thing. You are making this personal just like the other two.
My point still stands, people here pretend to know everything while we all were not there hearing it all.
So for what’s worth it - I do want to thank you for the respectable discussion. However I don’t like when things become personal in a discussion because that’s when the actual argument and discussion fades away.
I hope though, whatever happens, it will be with full transparency and the right person will be punished.
When someone in a position of power and authority does something like this to someone who is under their power, it is 100% inappropriate. The person in a position of power is always at fault, ESPECIALLY if that person then accuses the other of lying. This should not be a debate and I'm disappointed in your apparent lack of judgement. Do better.
This is absolutely true when dealing with tribalists. You're either with them or against them; there is no in-between.
Just look at everyone getting mad at you for even suggesting we don't know all the facts. Sad, but that's what this generation has become. Rabid fools desperate to fit in with other rabid fools.
If they’re mad about an opinion over the internet, well that’s on them. Nowadays it’s pretty much follow the hype train and pretending to know everything.
They can downvote me to oblivion, that’s fine. It’s internet point which does not mean anything at all and especially here on Lemmy. I can still do everything. So it matters even less.
Majority doesn’t even have a good argument point, if I remember well, there were only one or two people who had. The rest didn’t and went direct into personal matters, which isn’t a good thing for an argument.
I quite much forgot about this thread/ argument until, I saw your comment.
You're taking empiricism to absurd lengths. Why?
It's not empiricism. He's disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.
His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He's claiming that if we don't have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It's almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can't know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.
Doubting that someone who says "I didn't want to be kissed" didn't actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It's victim blaming. He's just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.
Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.
The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.
Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can't make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can't ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.
OK. So my point stands, you're being a little pedantic here.
Are you replying to someone else? I can't tell what you're trying to say.
Are you autistic?
No.
You OK there?
Just that the "arguments" and wording of these comments read very autistic, not just your own.
I don't really know what that means... It's just a really weird thing to comment on a post. Even if I were autistic, how would that matter and what effect would it have on the discussion?
The way you focus on concepts like empiricism, nihilism, solipsism, other isms, instead composing a straightforward reply that is to the point comes across autistic. The other guy's doing the same so maybe it's just typical conversation on here.
A straightforward reply wouldn't work in this situation because OP did not make a straightforward comment. So we use those terms because they are rhetorical terms that describe the techniques the original poster was using. It's easy for someone like OP to make a dishonest argument and mask it as an honest one, so we are calling him out on that dishonesty by showing the flawed arguments for what they are.
I think it's not something typical of conversation here, but it is typical of rhetorical conversation, and you'll hear this kind of speech whenever people discuss logical and rhetorical arguments.