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
There is a solid counter argument here (to play devil's advocate). This is what a right wing American would say to this:
See, we don't have to tax the rich, they're so generous. It's more efficient to let them have their money and donate it directly to causes. The federal government is so bad at allocating wealth, reducing taxes so more people can be like her is the way to go.
If the person above is not wealthy themselves, the following thought to this is Well, when I'm inevitably wealthy because of how great I am, I don't want the government taxing me so I can be like her.
Then they pat themselves on the back for being so ((in an impossible future)) generous.
It's worth thinking about how to counter this argument.
People have conscious and unconscious biases.
They are prejudiced and can’t allocate money objectively. This woman is directing the use of this money even though that may not be the best use of the money.
When you look at this on a macro scale, what is the system we have for allocating resources across an entire country? Government.
Is it perfect? No, but it doesn’t change the fact the most efficient and objective means we have is government.
In short, I don’t want a system where a huge racist can accumulate vast wealth and society has the prevailing view that this racist will be altruistic through some mystical force.
It's important to think about the counterargument, I agree.
To counter your counterargument: it's not a good argument on many levels (scope, allocation, distribution mechanism, effect). The main reason is that this sort of charity doesn't improve the core problem of low(er) social mobility. The opportunity to pursue self-development/self-fulfillment should not be tied to the whimsical act of a better-off person but presented to everyone as equal as possible - through common goods and services. The impossible future is impossible due to vastly different prerequisites. The person's "greatness" will never be seen, as most likely they will never be presented with the opportunity to display it.