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
Great, as long as it’s written (and applied) in a gender neutral fashion.
It is, and that's not even hard to look up ...
What exactly is the goal of your comment?
I think we all know...
Edit:
I agree that my tone was off, and for that I apologise. I assumed a bad faith argument based on what feels like an endless string of self-proclaimed men's rights warriors, brought up with a warped sense of equality, people who can't seem to wrap their heads around the collosal gap in the size of the problem that women face and try to equivocate to distract from that, so they can "have their say". Your initial comment still reeks of that type of mentality however I look at it. The problem the article points to is overwhelmingly more important for women's health, according to rainn.org 90% of reported rape cases are against women. Saying "what about men!" every time rape is mentioned without acknowledging this gap feels disingenuous. I will also add this edit to my initial comment. I hope this logic may help you understand why what you said was perceived as problematic.
Oh don’t hold back. Let’s hear your valuable insights!
False equivalence of men's and women's rights, plus a bunch of male incels screaming for equality. That comment screams All Lives Matter logic to me.
I think this is a myopic view. The law in Netherlands used to require penetration to be considered rape, a definition that excludes the majority of male rape victims. It's a genuine concern that laws be gender neutral.
My view was with regards to the intent behind the initial comment. As the person I replied to asked.
Right, you assumed bad faith intentions based on zero context and made some pretty specific accusations. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about gender neutral rape laws, especially in Europe.
But .. isn't that what the original poster did? They could have simply looked up whether it was gender neutral or write about why they think it is great that it is gender neutral. Instead they already doubted that it was, assuming bad faith from the start.
Also, why is that a special problem in Europe? Or to what are you referring? In some countries, like UK, while it is not called rape sexual assault has the same maximum penalty (which is life in prison).
Nobody says there aren't.
No that’s pretty much exactly what you’re saying.
All because I want the law to be gender neutral? Wow.
Heaven forbid anyone care about real world injustices that rape victims have suffered because the law doesn’t recognise them.
I think you should take a good hard look at yourself and reflect on your statement, to be honest.
I agree that my tone was off, and for that I apologise. I assumed a bad faith argument based on what feels like an endless string of self-proclaimed men's rights warriors, brought up with a warped sense of equality, people who can't seem to wrap their heads around the collosal gap in the size of the problem that women face and try to equivocate to distract from that, so they can "have their say". Your initial comment still reeks of that type of mentality however I look at it. The problem the article points to is overwhelmingly more important for women's health, according to rainn.org 90% of reported rape cases are against women. Saying "what about men!" every time rape is mentioned without acknowledging this gap seems disingenuous. I will also add this edit to my initial comment. I hope this logic may help you understand why what you said was perceived as problematic.
You're saying that the other poster was not invoking any of those legitimate reasons. And you base that on... what exactly? His five other comments on Lemmy?
Jumping straight to the most uncharitable interpretation of someone's intent is a bad habit.
A guess based on experience with similar toned poster's across social media. Don't pretend a majority of dudes talking like that aren't just out for some sort of women-hating catharsis. Weeding them out isn't my job, it's the poster's to be aware of the reality of online human rights discussion before all-lives'ing their point of view. However annoyed my tone was their initial post was also in bad faith.