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
such as? am I going to prison for owning a black flag?
I will not stop praising or glorifying climate protestors laying across lanes of traffic. you being a little bit late to your soul sucking 9 to 5 isn't an act of terrorism.
The word Terrorist is already used as a truncheon against dissidents. Convicted Terrorist is about to become the 3rd gender in Australia.
On the internet words like terrorist, fascist, and genocide seemingly has lost all meaning. It's just an expression of dumb emotions.
But in a court of law these words do have defined meanings. The internet != real life.
And yeah a law in which the intent is to reduce antisemitism by banning symbols carried by antisemitic people may result in it being illegal for you to display your black flag in public if that same flag as carried by people who promote violence against Jews.
This might trigger some introspection in some people about why they're in possession of symbols that are also carried by people that promote racist violence. Is there is significant difference between your black flag and a swastika in terms of how those symbols affect people?
The big problem with these laws is that the people legally defining these words are including non violent acts such as protesting.
if I say we should abolish the senate that's not terrorism ... unless you're a senator.
and if you know anything about the black flag you know I don't stop at the senate.
Can you point out any examples of this happening in Australia?
open any legislation, the first thing they do is define any words they use that diverge from common use.
C'mon, you're making the claim here. If it's as easy as opening any legislation then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide an example.
While blocking roads isn't terrorism, being late can have serious consequences for people. Not everyone has the ability to show up late with no consequences. Trivializing people getting fired, getting smaller raises, being late/ missing medical appointments,... is not going to help your cause.
What if everyone is too busy hating you to pollute?
They'll pollute even more as they're idling on the highway waiting to move instead of getting to their destination more efficiently.
Damn the protest might add an extra 0.0000000000001% to our annual pollution.
Alienate people to your cause and increase pollution. It doesn't seem like an effective way to protect the climate.
“I was going to support not causing the extinction of our species but someone made me late to work one day, so I support climate change now due to spite”
Said nobody ever.
It's more I don't want to associate with this group they made me lose my job and then said suck it up its for the greater good.
But that didn't happen.
Either was the hypothetical I responded to.
People have complained about being delayed. I've seen no one say they lost their jobs.
Does a person on parole who was sent back to jail because he lost his job for being late count?
https://reason.com/2022/07/06/blocking-a-highway-is-not-a-legitimate-or-effective-form-of-protest/
How about not being able to get to the emergency room.
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/manitoba-man-trapped-in-convoy-protest-while-trying-to-drive-his-sister-to-emergency-room-1.5775033
How about going into labor and being stuck. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/woman-reportedly-goes-into-labor-while-stuck-in-traffic-after-protesters-shut-down-i-80-in-berkeley/
"May". They don't know that he did.
You're moving the goal posts he said he would lose his job.
Not only did he lose his job he went to jail.
No, it says "may" (as I already stated) and "likely", not that he did. So that's unconfirmed and... No other examples.
I can tell you didn't read the article, he went to jail.
For the third time: "we do have a bystander who may have just lost his freedom"
May. Likely. Unless you have confirmation that this solitary person you found lost his job then no, it's not a valid concern.
Did you read it yourself?
FTA
Yes, for what? Being aggressive to protestors? For being late to work? It doesn't actually say, so your original post with this link is making up the connection. Did you read the article yourself?
So now you finally admit he went to jail.
He went to jail because protesters prevented him from leaving (kidnapping) and he fought with his kidnappers.
He was arrested, he wasn't kidnapped, and no mention of the job. He was being confrontational as the article stated. Why do I need to "admit" what happened to him? It's in the article. No mention of his job, which you have been so insisted on. I'm very bored of this since you have shown no proof of anyone losing their jobs.
He was prevented from leaving, that's kidnapping.
You finally admitted he was sent to jail, is it your claim that he still held his job while in jail?
He was arrested, where did it say he went to jail? Or lost his job? It was also because of what looks like his confrontational attitude, not because of the protestors. So no actual examples of losing jobs, right.
I get it now you're just dragging the goal posts over and over.
First you claimed that no one had ever said they lost their job. He clearly said that.
Is your new claim that he didn't go to jail when he was arrested, that parolees don't go to jail when there are arrested, that he didn't lose his job while he was in jail?
Actually no, you have been wrong throughout this exchange and you continue to be wrong in the face of direct quotes. Last post from me on the matter as you seem insistent on ignore facts:
I didn't claim no one had lost their jobs, I said (and I quote): "I’ve seen no one say they lost their jobs."
I had never seen that, and, guess what? I still haven't.
He (who?) didn't clear say he lost his job but that he could if he doesn't make it to his job on time (as part of his parole).
The guy was arrested, I don't know if he went to jail, I don't know the system there. I don't know he lost his job (it wasn't mentioned).
And you still bleat on about it? You have only found this tenuous example whereby the guy was arrested (his fault, not the protestors). Do one.
So you have no evidence to refute the guy's claim that he would lose his job and go back to jail if he's late. You have no idea what happens to parolees when they get arrested but somehow think he was able to keep his job as he was arrested. It seems like the theme is you don't know.
Now you've moved the goal posts to find more examples.
They don’t care if you associate with them or not, they care about the survival of our species/life on earth.
And they won't get more people to join their cause with those tactics. You need people to support your cause for your cause to be successful.
it's ok to hate as long as it's the right people I guess.
meanwhile truck drivers blocking tunnels because they don't know their clearance don't go to jail.
You don't see a difference between intentional and accidential acts?
How bloody far down did i need to scroll to find this. Why am i not suprised they did this.
Yeah, that second part is concerning.