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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
I'm sure theyll be given a stern talking to.
Whoa whoa whoa let's not get ahead of ourselves
Perhaps an unsatisfied glance and we can see where things go from there?
While handing them a few crates of guns.
Nah Biden already refuses to back the UN call for investigation. They're just gonna deny this one
A bit misleading imo since "refuses" sounds like they're saying "no, we won't back it" when they just didn't give an answer to it yet.
They could refuse later though.
If they do not answer yes or no to a question about backing an investigation it means no. Because they did not say they want to back it.
The question was posed very clear.
In this case the answer is even clearer. They only want to ask israel directly and do not want an independent
I don't think so. I think it means they didn't give a straight answer. What it effectively means is they're not calling for it right now. But it's not a definite no for doing it later. I think the distinction, for a headline, matters.
Yes they're saying the conversation leaves there under further info.
If you do not support an investigation right now
Then you do not support an investigation.
What will happen in the future is not relevant. If they change their stance in the future then a new article with that headline can be published.
We used to not let black people vote. We didn't go "yeah but they can vote in the future so we can ignore that".
If you don't support and investigation right now, then you don't support an investigation right now. Losing the "right now" makes the meaning less clear.
I'd be fine with saying they don't support it right now
But that applies for everything. "Right now" would only be relevant if it is clearly implied that in the future they would support it.
Why would they support an investigation in the future if they don't support it right now? They cannot even "support it in the future" because most evidence will likely be lost over time. Investigations need to happen as soon as possible.
Yeah pretty much
The only non refusing answer to:
"we have found a mass grave of mutiliated people, in particular women and children showing clear signs of torture and execution. We need an Investigation immediately!"
is:
"Yes you are absolutely right, we will support an immediate investigation. Also we will halt any support for people who are suspected of being responsible."
"We will do something about it", "we're not sure if we are going to do something" and "no we won't do something" seem like three distinct answers to me. Saying the last one would be a much more definite no than just "we'll see". Saying the US refuses to back it makes it sound like the last one imo, which would be a bit misleading.
But we are not talking about "The toilet paper in the school restrooms seems to always be empty." We are talking about the uncovering of mass graves with strong indications of women and children being executed. Anything below immediate action on the matter is a form of opposition to it.
Or in other words, when you call the firefighters because your house is on fire then "we'll see if we will do something about the fire, maybe, maybe not." means that they will let your house burn down.
Firefighters have the assumption that it's their job to do something about it. I don't think the same is true for USA here. But even in the firefighter example in news headlines I'd make a distinction between them telling you they're refusing and them waiting and seeing if their presence is necessary. It makes sense for a news headline imo.