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
It is more offensive to kill someone rather than destroying a book. Any group of people that kills over offense is a danger to their society and the world.
Which group? How do you define that group? Do you think groups of people should be collectively punished for the actions of individuals of that group?
Also i fail to see why incitement to kill people, which is the ultimate goal of the book burning becomes acceptable, because killing people is worse? Is every lesser crime acceptable? is every hate speech acceptable? Is everything acceptable that falls short of killing someone?
I think it should be obvious that lesser crimes are still crimes and i think it should be obvious, that hate speech against minorities is particular problematic, as it leads to killing people of that minority, which as you point out is the most severe crime.
Yeah, no, you can't just go claiming that's what burning a book is about, especially a religious text
I've burned multiple religious texts in protest, it's never been about incitement to kill
If a group of people collectively is outraged enough to kill over a certain value system, they should be mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized for that belief. In the united states we have radicals that will kill over abortion. They are mocked and ridiculed. If Muslims get offended, they should be mocked and ridiculed for being soft.
Burning a book is not a "lesser crime." It is speech. If you are offended, how about you put your big boy pants on and act like a man and get over it.
Im against hate speech but it should not be criminalized. Violent speech can be. "This person should be killed" then a overt act made towards violence should be criminal.
But if Muslims get so upset about a book buring and kill, then Muslims are in the wrong and need to realize this is the real world and people don't bow down to babies that cry about offense.
You do know that there is 2 billion Muslims in the world?
So for the act of unknown assailants you think 2 billion people should be "mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized"
By your own example, because some women who got abortions have committed crimes in their life and many women rights advocates get offended by insults towards women seeking abortions, you would want to "mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" them all too.
There is anti fascists who got so outraged by fascists that they have killed them too. So you must mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized" anti-fascists too.
By your own logic you just justify hating everyone in the world, because in every group of people you will find someone who you find reprehensible, which you then apply to the entire group.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It seems to stem more from some personal things that have nothing to do with any particular group.
The fundamentals of Islam have caused the world a tremendous amount of pain and blood just like the fundamentals of Christianity.
I'm sure you are unfamiliar wIth the ALCU but I will defend the right of nazis to March. I will not defend them when they enact policies like prison camps. That's my position.
Your position is that you are super sensitive and do not respect freedom of speech. Different opinions make countries stronger. And if you are going to be hyper sensitive, you better be able to fight. That said, Islamic countries haven't won a war since the middle ages.
Maybe by allowing diversity of opinions and not being so sensitive, you might win a war eventually.
Talks about freedom of speech and then wants to defend the rights of Nazis to march, yeah right. Free speech is a funny thing these days.