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
How come Syria has to protect women, but US federal and state governments don't?
Why does Syria need to renounce terrorism, but the US federal and state governments don’t?
What do you mean?
Look at the anti female healthcare laws that are being enacted across the US.
Start with Florida and Texas as some of the more glaring examples.
Could you be specific about which laws? I'm not saying you're wrong I just want to know specifically what you are saying the government is doing that removes protections from women
Here's the first couple of articles I found in a quick search:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/16798/
http://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/30/texas-woman-death-abortion-ban-miscarriage
The intent of those laws isn't to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.
Given gow horribly thwy are implemented, it's hard to accept it isn't intentionally being cruel.
Definitely possible but I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor unless evidence shows otherwise.
Here's some evidence for you: a 10 year old rape victim in Ohio was forced to travel to Indiana for an abortion, since Ohio had a blanket ban on all abortion at the time. The doctor that performed the abortion in Indiana was investigated and fined, and still faces harassment to this day. For performing an abortion for a 10 year old rape victim.
Firstly, that's not evidence. You need to provide an article or something along those lines to provide evidence. That being said, I also don't doubt what you say. However you are claiming they did it with the specific intent of hurting that 10 year old and people like her. What evidence do you have of that? All you have shown is that in the act of protecting the fetus, the would-be mother and doctor got hurt. That's not the same thing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/texas-abortion-ban-deaths-pregnant-women-sb8-analysis-rcna171631
https://people.com/texas-teen-suffering-miscarriage-dies-due-to-abortion-ban-8738512
The intent of those laws isn't to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.
It's obvious you were waiting for someone to finally say abortion so you could respond with that.
If women are dying because of laws denying them medical care that could have easily saved their lives, that is the definition of not protecting women.
I was waiting for someone to actually state their position. It is a bit weird how no one would actually say what their opinion was and instead relied on people making assumptions about their position. It's rather terrible for communication imo.
You are right, women are being hurt by those laws, those are not anti womens healthcare laws though. As I said those laws are about the fetus. Women being hurt and killed is an unintended externality. People talk like there is a war on women here comparable to what the Taliban is doing when the US is one of the best places in the world to be a woman. That's not to say the US isn't backtracking but perspective is important.
It's hard to perceive your "what do you mean?" as genuine, especially considering it wasn't a vague reference. I think you could have asked, "Do you only mean abortion or is there something else?" and communicated your points in a less passive-aggressive "trap" framework.
Additionally, the original point only stated US governments are not protecting women, which is true regardless of your stance on abortion, regardless of the intended target of the law and regardless if it was intentionally targeting, "a war on", women.
I'm unsure why people are expected to correctly interpret what they meant, yet I am required to spell out what I said. That seems like a double standard. Personally I felt what I wrote was clear enough as it was. I wanted to know what they meant by what they said, so I asked them what they meant.
"What do you mean?" all by itself doesn't come across as seeking clarification. You knew likely what it meant, and if you really did not know, you gave no indication that the answer was a revelation. This makes it come across as being asked in bad faith. If you'd responded that you had no idea that's what we meant it wouldn't have been received poorly, at least by me.
If you'd framed your question as seeking clarification instead of feigning ignorance I think people would have been less combative.
Think about it
Unfortunately I can't read people's minds to figure out what their argument is.