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.
-
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
What he really means is that he only wants to hear about one slice of a political view, or he doesn't understand that climate change is a political subject too.
He probably means he disagrees with her about this issue and didn't show up to support a pro-Palestine rally.
I've been told that if your protest isn't disruptive, it's not really a protest, so I'm sure everyone here will be fully understanding and supportive of this guy for standing up for his beliefs /s
Not all beliefs are created equal. You can respect people without respecting their beliefs.
The point is that people on lemmy (and reddit, and other left leaning forums) tend to dump on people who object to protestors disrupting shit, like closing roads (without a permit), etc.
And then get hypocritical when a protestor does the same thing to counter protest a popular (in this forum) cause.
Don't get me wrong, I think this was a shitty move. But I also think fucking over completely unrelated people's days by blocking traffic is also a shit way to conduct a protest.
I think the difference between these two situations is the disruption of commerce.
Capitalists do not give a shit about protests until the protests start affecting their bottom line. That's why blocking freeways is such a big deal--it speaks to them in a language that they understand. It's effective not because John Q Taxpayer can't get to work on time, but because Corporation Q Capital-owner can't exploit John's labor without his butt in his seat and without trucks full of resources coming in regularly. Corporations lose much, much more than regular people do when commerce is disrupted.
Grabbing the microphone like is disruptive, but it does not disrupt commerce. If anything, it shows that his goal is to deplatform someone (someone whose platform is the very reason he is there tonight, by his own admission) or to elevate his own platform.
Whoever told you that, stop listening to them. An effective protest is one that expresses your views, and ideally changes people's minds and builds support for your cause. Disrupting people's lives is typically counterproductive to actually gaining support.
There are genuinely people who think like that. To be fair, the George Floyd protests/riots changed things in a way that peaceful protest had so far failed to do.
Some minor progress was made because of the millions of people who turned out to peacefully protest. Those who rioted and destroyed shit only contributed ammunition to the opposition.
I disagree, I think having an entire block burnt down made a lot of people decide they don't want to see this happen again, in a way a regular protest wouldn't have.
Really? You think people had their businesses burned down and their town destroyed and thought to themselves "boy I hope these people get what they wanted!" or do you think they thought "These people are human garbage and I hope they rot in prison"? Which one of these thought processes makes more sense to you?
Correct. English sufferage was only gained after a group of women took on learning jujitsu, wearing badass capes and paper body armor and went out burning government buildings and breaking all the windows in anti sufferagette buildings/homes and when police showed up they'd kick the shit out of them with jujitsu and then they'd make a speech the police couldn't break up because their faces were meeting their asses for the first time and in a most uncomfortable way.
Ed: because it's interesting and I'm sure people won't take my word.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrajitsu
There's no way I would have believed you without the link.
It's a very weird story, I won't take it personally.
That is fucking wild! How was I never aware of this? Thanks for sharing it.
Because governments don't particularly want it known that an effective protest is one that puts the government in fear.
The protests started because the police murdered a man in full view of a group of witnesses, a lot of people had a vested interest in making sure that didn't happen again, in a way that non violent protest would not have achieved.
Quite the opposite. A non-violent protest would have achieved much more. The rioters and looters only obstructed the cause.
Did you ever get smacked as a child, out of interest?
I'm gonna get downvoted for this but this is just wrong.
Climate change is science, not politics. We are trying to address it from multiple angles at the aame time (such as political angles, scientific angles, lifestyle angles, etc)
So the fight to make our politicians accept that climate change is sceince and not politics is, ironically, a political fight but climate change and the movments to stop it are not only political.
Climate Change is, yes.
But the policies to combat it are not.
Addressing climate change is politics.
As Hbomb said, "People who say they don't like politics in games actually like politics in games the most, they just wish they were seeing different politics in games, and that's who Caesar's Legion is here to stroke off!"
No it's not! Fighting climate change can be addressed as legitimate issue to fix from both sides of the political spectrum. Talking about the gaza conflict and picking an arbitrary side, does nothing except, drive potential fff supporters away. People will hate Greta and everything she stands for even more. Only for virtue signaling points on social media.
Nah. She is spot on when she says that a movement for climate justice cannot ignored the marginalized, the oppressed, and those fighting for justice and freedom.
Those who would hate her for being anti-genocide and anti-apartheid are already very unlikely to be allies to the climate justice movement, a movement that highlights the way that impoverished peoples and nations, especially non-white non-european equatorial and global south nations, are uniquely suffering the consequences of climate change.
I don't see a connection between climate justice and justice for Palestinians, other than that it's both about justice. Could you elaborate why it's necessary to bring these seemingly unrelated struggles for justice together?
I btw totally see how a lot of social justice is tied to climate justice, but specifically the Palestinian struggle seems totally unrelated. Happy to change my mind.
I mean there's definitely geopolitical implications in this conflict and it happens to be in a region where there are wars for oil.
But this is such self pleasuring ineffective rhetoric. People in the first world which is the group you wanna adress. So western (not necessaryly white) rich people who enjoying their comforts in the first world. If you want them to actually do something. Like sell their car and become vegan. You have to show them climate change hitting their home turf. Pictures like Italy and Greece Burning for Europeans, smoke covered NYC, etc. If you talk about a "climate justice" movement, in which the main message is, "dont you care about the brown poor people?" you denigrate this catastrophy as an UNICEF Donation event. No one will give up their SUV for that.
Now the Gaza Conflict is complex and polarizing for muslims and Israel supporters, in which you can only make a bad choice, people will turn away and ignore whatever you are trying to sell.
Greta, like many climate activists, is not appealing to rich people. Rich people will never comply with climate regulations. They are almost all sociopaths who do not fucking care if global warming continues to worsen or not. Greta is appealing to the people of the world, people of the working class. There are many of us and the rich are very few. Billionaires and the wealthy will have to be forced to stop destroying the environment by the nation's they exist in.
She's also a socialist. As most climate activists are. We don't give a shit what rich people think. They should be forced to comply. They will never comply of their free will.
This is such a deranged worldview. Progressive liberals and leftists are the rich people! California is a democratic bastion and filled to the brim with progressives and its one of the richest states in the nation. George Soros and Bill Gates support progressive causes. How can you not see that. And shes is definitely not pondering to working class people. Because working class people support political parties which have climate change denying tendencies. Like the republican party and the afd in germany.
Another example from my home turf. Bavaria is the richest state in Germany. BUT also very conservative. Wealth is concentrated around munich. The wider you go away from munich. The "poorer" the population. Last month were the state elections of Bavaria. And the turnout in Munich was nearly 50% for the green party. The wider you distanced yourself from it, the more right wing parties profited. Which used anti green bashing as their main rhetoric. Poor working class people dont vote green en masse.
Conservative economic policy is literally, entirely, "make the country nicer for rich people".
Socialism centre's working class people. It advocates for the dismantling and end of the upper class. Rich people should have their wealth taken from them and redistributed to the people. Socialism is the polar opposite of an ideology of the rich. At its most radical Socialism advocates for... getting rid of the rich people by any means necessary. That's all I'll say on that.
Leftism is based around the tenants of Socialism. George Soros and Bill Gates are capitalists. Capitalism is why they are wealthy. Conservatism and more broadly neoliberalism (the modern day ideology of most Conservative and liberal parties) promotes capitalism and the free market. Rich people are decidedly neoliberal. Socialism stands in direct opposition to neoliberalism, advocating instead for heavy regulation of every single industry and the public acquisition of all infrastructure and industry. This would be taking the rich people's assets, their companies, their means of production, and nationalizing them such that they are collectively owned and benefited from by everyone.
Liberals and Conservatives are identical in terms of economic policy. They only differ in terms of how authoritarian they believe the government should be, and how much minorities should be made to suffer in society. Economically they are the exact same. Look at Biden, for example. Look at new labor. Liberals and conservatives are largely allies, and their best friends are rich people. Leftists seek a society where rich people do not exist.
I think you might be narrowing the definition of politics. Something is political not just when two arbitrary political "sides" disagree. Something is a political issue when government policy is involved, and Greta is absolutely in the business of changing government policy. Climate change is also a political issue because it does create a divide among political groups: the rich and the poor. The people who own the most stuff will profit from irresponsible pollution, and have the most means to avoid its consequences. They will be using their political power to make sure things stay that way. The poor will suffer.
Or detract from the movement by bringing other fronts for it to be attacked into the conversation