Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added tothe title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- [email protected] - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
view the rest of the comments
No, you're the one coping out by both refusing to engage in good faith AND refusing to do the work of fact checking if you want to be so pedantic and skeptical. You want to have it both ways. And in the end the result is always you ignoring information and arguments you don't like. If you're not invested enough in your objection to skim through 15 minutes of transcript you shouldn't be invested enough to keep flapping your mouth in ignorance of it.
I would've been happy to engage if they stated what point they were trying to make and how and what part of the video they are citing. I'm still happy to do that. If you're expecting others to just figure that out by themselves from a 26 minute video, you are going to have a bad time. If it's not fine on a study or thesis, why would you think it's fine in a fast paced short form internet argument?
When you are making an argument, you are trying to convince the other person. If you don't clearly make your case and rely on them to figure out your argument and what supports it, it's just not going to work well. At that point it feels like the person is trying to convince themselves and not the other person.
I understand you're upset about me not doing the work for them, but there's no need not to be civil about this. This seems to just be a case of us having a very different expectation on what people should do in arguments or how they should argue.
Impossible to take you seriously when you don't have a moment's dissonance saying shit like this. "If it's not correct in context A it shouldn't be correct in context B which is almost exactly opposite to what context A looks like"
You aren't even attempting the mental gymnastics. You're just saying 2+2 = 5 without added effort.
I mean, the point was that if it is not okay to cite just a full book in a context where the communication is a lot slower, text is a lot longer, there's an expectation of reading a lot more and so on, then why would it be okay in an online argument where the communication is a lot quicker, texts a lot shorter and you aren't expected to read at all as much.
To put it in simpler terms: If you shouldn't assume that someone is going to read a whole book for a citation in your thesis, why would you expect that from someone reading a random internet argument? I hope that helps explain it, tell me if I need to clarify further.
You don't need to clarify anything; you're just being wrongheaded. First, just because YOU'RE a freak hitting F5 until your finger breaks doesn't mean asynchronous text is a 'faster' medium. No one's forcing you to talk out of your ass. No one's forcing you to respond as fast as you can. You have permission to stop replying if the person you're arguing with is better read than you and you want to incorporate their knowledge base into your own. And if you don't you're saying that your ignorance is as valuable as their knowledge.
Why would you expect someone to read something just because someone said "I got this information from here"? My child, no one expects you to do that. They expect you to take their word for it. And if you are so hostile as to be motivated to accuse them of lying, you take on the exercise of exposing them.
I'm astounded by how doggedly you're asserting your lazy entitlement.
I'm just telling you how it works generally in an online arguments. You're free to post a whole book or a long video as an argument. It's just that most people aren't going to engage with that and it won't work well to prove an argument to the other people. I'm sorry that it upsets you, it's not my intention.
Oh wow I didn't know I was being visited by his holiness the arbiter of how online arguments should and do work. And by holy decree you've asserted that it works however allows you to be the laziest, most bad faith and anti-intellectual.
I have an idea of how things should work: either engage or don't. You don't have to live like a fucking weasel trying to sidestep arguments with "but you didn't give me a timestamp" and "lol u mad" all the time. You can just shut the fuck up, you know.
Doing these things doesn't make you more right. Just the opposite.
I mean don't take my word for it, see how internet arguments generally work out there in internet. If you come off with a different idea on how they generally work, then it's an agree to disagree situation imo.
No need for these sort of outbursts. Against the rules too...
Delusional. You look. Who out there is using more strict citation rules than academic papers?
I stand by these words and add to them: Fuck you tone policing. Go fuck yourself a second time for the behavior I called out here. Punk ass.
I wasn't asking even for the same rules, just saying that even when there's the expectation that your reader does academic work when reading you don't put in a whole book.
It's the rules. Take it up with mods of this sub and instance.
And my position is that you're a lazy piece of shit crybaby who can't argue in good faith. You can't accept someone saying "I remember reading it in this book" without jumping down their throat and demanding they do work for you for no other purpose than for you to smugly ignore what they say. Fuck you.
You were born stupid and you're going to die stupid.
mfw this thread is still going on