A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I don’t envy anyone in that job. Gangs have been taking out journalist and politicians left and right, and I hope she is successful at clawing back the country from the narcos.
She's probably alive because she's already cut a deal with the narcos. I believe over a dozen other candidates were gunned down, along with some family members. I doubt that her and her family managed to get out of all that from simple luck.
I've got this tiger-repelling rock to sell you.
She's a shadow puppet of the last president, and he didn't do anything to stop the narcos or the murders. Why would you think she's different?
You have deduced incorrectly that I have any thought about her whatsoever. I'm merely pointing out that your reasoning is flawed and therefore invalid.
Ok. How do you think it's flawed? The drug lords literally killed over a dozen other candidates, the current president was looking the other way on their business, and this woman worked with that president and is known to have similar views.
So where's the flaw, my guy?
She is still alive so she must've made a deal with the drugs cartel is a classic "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. It is all speculation.
Well of course it's speculation. It doesn't make it untrue or very unlikely, though. It's just not a certainty. What is a certainty was that a dozen+ candidates were murdered, but there weren't any attempts of her or her family.
What is a certainty was that a dozen+ candidates were murdered, but there weren’t any attempts of her or her family.
This means precisely nothing, as explained by the fallacy mentioned before.
It doesn’t make it untrue or very unlikely, though
But you called it 'probably' though, which is on the complete other end of the spectrum from 'very unlikely'... (aside from it being very unlikely to me, if all I have to go on is unrelated events, someone not being dead, and nothing else)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What kind of comment is that!
Maybe she could be protected by "pilares de Oro y plata" or pillars of gold and silver. Or just really thick steel? What about really thick steel? Would that work?