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
No, no, no.
Just like there can't be such a thing as State Terrorism "because it's legal so can't be terrorism", there can't be State Hostage-taking "because it's legal"!
/s
The term I've heard for this the establishment equivalent of a terrorist: a "horrorist" (best link I could find here (2007) about Israel/Palestine conflict, America's "War on Terror," etc).
Basically what they do is legal, and according to plan, and somehow more respectable and orderly than what the terrorists do, but still the outcome is human suffering, often on a much grander scale than what any terrorist could hope for. For instance the accidental bombing of a school (oops!), or in the use of white phosphorous (which turns the divine human into a lump of abject suffering).
"Horrorists" can make you quake with fear, but unlike the terrorist, they have the legitimacy of a democratic state, and powerful allies to back their actions.
The term I heard for this is "state terrorism".
The actions speak for themselves and how established or not the power of the actors doing the deed is, has no relevance for the moral quality of such actions.
Using different language is a trap put in place by those in established power - it segregates what morally are the same kind of acts into two groups, by how established the power of those doing the deeds are, and the acts of the well established power are relentlessly portrayed using those special separate designations as if they had a morally different character - ann acceptable one - than the exact same acts when committed by those outside established power structures.
This is why, say, when an Israeli soldier shoots on the head a child throwing stones at an armored digger, it's not designated in the media as "murder" or even "terrorism" even though from a strict "taking no sides" judicial point of view it is definitelly the former and depending on intention might very well be the latter.
So yeah, murder for the purpose of scaring the rest is terrorism, no matter if those doing the deeds are part of a well established power structure, called "soldiers" and using 500lb bombs dropped from military planes that cost many millions of dollars or part of a group which is not a well established power structure, called "rebels" and using knifes - the means and how well entrenched the power structure behind the acts is are both irrelevant for the dtermining the moral quality of that deed.
I agree, but I do feel like the harm committed by "state terrorism" is worse, in a way I find hard to articulate. It's true that using a separate word can be a useless distinction, but it does feel different to me in an important way.
But I'm not the kind of person who needs convincing that the state can sin just as well as the individual, so maybe my perspective isn't applicable.
oh yes you can... However when you are sentenced for stabbing two people literally like at least one of the prisonner freed you are not, in fact an hostage
That explains 1 in 5200.
Only 5199 to go to explain it all away: so go on, don't be shy.
I would love to hear how you explain the ones in administrative detention (guilty of the crime of "walking whilst being Arab"?!)
And don't get me started on all the kids convicted of "assauting with stones an armored digger razing their home" and the palestinians convicted of "hurting 'colonist' fists with their faces" or "defending their homes from a superior race".
you must really believe in 13/50 eh? or does racism stop being a factor when you do enough of it?
what the hell is 13/50 ?
you can search it up on SPLC's or ADL's website