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's it going to take to actually do something about these ultra-rich leeches literally destroying our planet and everything good on it to inflate a number in a bank somewhere? How do we actually build up the initiative to stop it?
All our other problems seem largely centered around our inability to appropriately respond to extreme greed. Not only in actually actively stopping it, but in even identifying it or being able to properly censure it in the first place. The moment you start talking about the rich being the cause of our problems, there's a section of society that starts tuning you out. I definitely feel like as things get worse people are starting to catch on, but even once we're there, where do we go?
If we actually get to the point of agreeing that excessive wealth is inherently misanthropic and should be a crime in and of itself, how do we make it a crime while so much power sits in the hands of those who'd be on the losing end of that decision?
I hope the WGA and SAG can spark a change in people's consciousness around labor. I'd honestly love to see a lot more interviews and independent podcasts coming from the picket lines. If there's anyone who can convince Americans to fight for the value of their labor, it's the people write and play the parts in the stories they love.
I want to add on some quick math. Some people will look at this and scoff, saying that actors are millionaires and are more similar to these billionaire leeches than to us. A billion isn't a number you can easily wrap your head around -- I have trouble putting it into the correct perspective and scale, and I'm an engineer. It's really difficult. So to try and show exactly how much money we're talking here, I'm going to use time:
I haven't even lived for 1 billion seconds yet, and I'm 28! Even an actor who's racked up $100m over a successful career is closer to $0 than they are to $1b. Now arguably I'd say $100m is at the point where it needs to be treated similarly to $1b, but even so. The average working adult is closer to an actor in terms of wealth than these disgusting hoarders.
In reality, every dollar isn't equal, and what this analysis doesn't take into account is the amount leftover after all necessities are paid for, which is the reason why someone making $35k is not living like a millionaire. The point here is, a billion is incredibly big. It's unfathomable. Unless the person protesting is a billionaire, they're on your side against the leeches and absurdly wealthy.
(I suspect this is why actors tend liberal and billionaires tend conservative.)
The fact that most people will reflexively reject and wilt at the idea of a wealth cap, or at least enforceablely taxing every dollar made above a certain amount at 99%, is a testament to the many decades of often-subtle propaganda that makes people think that modern western capitalism is the only way. As well as the continuing de-funding of public education and making colleges less accessible.
And another part of the problem (and IMO one of the biggest ones) is that the propaganda is only their first line of defense. If the rich and ultra powerful feel actually threatened, they don't have to rely on soft power. See Epstein's fate as well as the Panama papers reporter.
We need enough people to agree on both a vehicle and a direction.
There are a lot of people dissatisfied with the current government(s) but don't agree how to create change; be it through the current system, major modifications to the current system, or even more severe changes.
There are a lot of people who don't want wide spread poverty/suffering, but don't agree on how that problem should be dealt with; be it through universal income, massive public projects, or wealth taxation and better competition regulations.
IMO we need a new digital/decentralized/open-source/transparent 'social media platform' that can replace the current easily manipulated electoral systems.
We need ideas & policies to be independently actionable from the partisan politics that afaic specifically exist to mitigate change and maintain the influence of money in policy.
Not sure if this is directly applicable but there's the concept of dual power, where you can organize a bottom up power structure that takes some power from the regular government without needing to either submit to it or outright overthrow it. With that said it has only ever been successful in cases where the government is incredibly unstable to begin with.
I agree that that we do need something like a collective action platform so people can coordinate much better than they currently do. Also something that you didn't directly mention but I think you imply is that there doesn't need to be complete agreement before action is taken because there are alot of valid disagreements on how to move forward but there are also alot of agreements as well that are ignored in public conversation because we take those points as a default.
I've been working on something similar to this on my own time (which you can see in my post history) but honestly we won't move forward if we don't actively start working together properly.
Robin Hood Rebellion. Start taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Let's be honest the only answer is [redacted], they effectively own the government in the US and it's not much better in Europe
Not all revolutions require blood, but I feel like capitalism is going to fight real hard to stay around. Even though that's exactly what needs to go
But what are we going to DO about the 5–12 feet tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis?
That's a really good question. Part of the problem, of course, is that the game is rigged: consider how difficult it is to buy food that doesn't feed the Nestle war chest.
As a society, I think there are moves in the right direction - I just stumbled across something called Community Wealth Building, which is very cool, for example.
But as a private individual? That's harder. I'd love it if there were an Amazon equivalent out there that sourced exclusively from worker owned co-ops, or at least unionized businesses, but as it is, I'm coming up dry...
That's because this is an insane claim.
This is a massive "If." I could probably never be convinced that one person's wealth is inherently detrimental to someone else's well-being.
These are very extreme views. I support the Hollywood strike, my buddy is a union leader (as were both my parents), and I'm a reliably Democrat voter, and I couldn't disagree more with what you've said above.
The thing is, you can't get that rich by playing fair, it's only possible at the expense of others. And I can assure you, most rich people are activelty making our lives worse.
Again that's a huge claim with nothing to back it up.
Nothing? 💀 Show me a single billionaire that got rich by playing fair
Define "playing fair"
Anticonsumer, anticompetitive practices, corruption and lobbying in their own interest, propaganda, tax evasion...
I lobbied in my own interest not 15 minutes ago, as part of Citizens Climate Lobby. Just got off a zoom meeting with my rep. Lobbying is not inherently bad.
Can you prove tax evasion? That's a serious crime.
Also, shameless plug - consider joining your local chapter of CCL! Took me 5 minutes to sign up and all meetings have been via zoom.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Yes, I didn't mean that lobbying in general is bad, I mean lobbying against the interest of the public. It's commonly done by basically any big corporation + propaganda to gaslight people into believing that its in their benefit ( an example i have on hand: https://web.archive.org/web/20201102203132/https://safeandsecuredata.org/get-the-facts/ )
By tax evasion I mean in general doing anything to not have to pay tax, lobbying against rich people tax, keeping your assets as loans, etc.
I'll look into the shameless plug
Consider that they have the power to massively improve everyone's lives but are choosing not to.
Perhaps they didn't personally cause and create some of those problems, but they are still the only ones with the power to make the necessary changes, so the continuation of those problems is indeed their doing.
In what way does the logistics revolution spurred by Amazon's growth not massively benefit every person who buys anything in the US? You're seriously suggesting with a straight face, that Microsoft hasn't saved literally hundreds of millions of lives just in database tech alone?
You're talking out of your ass here man. Hell, you're putting billionaires on par with running a government which is simply absurd.
It's not on rich people to save the fucking world, though Bill Gates has personally done more for the world than most governments ever have. It's on voters to pass policies that provide them better lives. That's the point of democracy
Are you serious lmao
You think billionaires have no influence on government? Please
I think you don't understand how government functions in any real way at all