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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@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 will probably get shit for this, since it's a predominantly left leaning space, but until society starts acknowledging men's issues it will keep getting worse.
https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics
This article is an excellent example of what I am talking about. It does not even mention the disparity of suicide rates between the sexes despite it obviously being a huge outlier. Instead, they talk about how guns are the problem, even though a gun is just a method.
Taking away the easy methods to commit suicide might reduce the rate, but it does nothing to address to core issues that make people want to kill themselves in the first place. Instead of 5000 dead people you will have 5000 people who wish they were dead. Mission accomplished.
Good news. We've moved on from 'man hating' on the left. Intersectional Feminism actually espouses the fact that men are also harmed by the patriarchy and all the ridiculous demands that it puts on us, like not feeling feelings. You should look into it.
Expecting women to help men is like expecting men to give women the right to vote suddenly on their own initiative.
If you’re essentializing the left you’re stuck in meaningless ideology. “Kill All Men” is a good T-shirt and let’s not pretend women shouldn’t look out for women. Intersectional Feminism might have good ad copy but expecting an ideology to cure all problems is a broken (and male-oriented) way of viewing the world.
“If we just get the ideology right the hard work will disappear!” No, men are still going to have to help other men and “Intersectional Feminism” is still going to be either 1) a way to a more nuanced feminism (a good thing for those feminists to develop, don’t get me wrong), or 2) an Extremely Online project of no real consequence.
Why do you think men aren't participating in feminism? We're men helping men over here.
Listen to yourself.
How dare you deprive women of the right to hate men for the shitty things that men do?
It's not like it's not a "well actually" just because you omitted the "well."
You absolutely can delegitimize the experience men have at the hands of feminism which is composed of humans who don't always get it right. You can do it, with this "well actually," but you're performing an ideological dance for yourself to try and salvage a feminism that doesn't need the help.
Feminism kicks ass and tells women to fuck up men when they deserve it, omni-feminism is weak sauce like this.
What a healthy outlook.
Yes.
I think it is healthier to respect the expression of rage of women and men.
I think it's healthier to expect and understand and embrace the contradictory nature of such expression than to bury it in ideological false unity.
I disagree almost entirely. If you're going to arbitrarily reduce 50% of the population to "those people are the reason for my suffering", then you're a dumb tool, and your rage is childish and shouldn't be encouraged.
You seem to be conflating, "Uh, don't be sexist because you're angry," with "Your emotions are invalid and you shouldn't pursue your own betterment".
I don't think you've understood what I'm trying to say.
If a woman's experience with most of the men in their life is that men are violent rapists, then you had damn well better not tell those women that their rage is childish and shouldn't be encouraged. Should that rage be allowed to guide policy? Yes. Should that rage be allowed to direct policy? No.
Guiding and directing policy are no different for someone who doesn't hold office. I will reiterate again that using your trauma as an excuse to hold bigoted views is childish and that it shouldn't be encouraged.
If in my experience most of the black people in my life were violent rapists, you wouldn't be like, "Wow, yes, you should blame all black people for the actions of the small group that you have interacted with". You would tell me that I was being a dumbshit for idk, blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a few.
I'm not about to play coddle Olympics towards someone who is directing their trauma and frustrations in an unhealthy way. I'm going to sympathize but also direct them towards a healthier approach.
And all (well, most) of that is well and good! But:
All politics is trauma mitigation. And you don't get to tell people that they should just not have their trauma, that they can not bring their trauma to the discussion table, because that isn't actually mitigating the trauma, just suppressing it. Since trauma is experienced intersectionally the unpacking of that trauma necessarily occurs contra another intersection.
If the contest is over who gets to unpack their trauma, you aren't going to succeed at bringing everyone to the table by forcing one ideology (in this case, 'feminism-for-everyone') into a position that is untenably 'omnivorous' (because it contradicts with 'feminism-for-women').
And there is this spectre in your thinking: there is no pure thought, there is no position free from bias, there is no exculpation you can perform to absolve yourself from contamination with the bigotry attendant upon trauma. You can't ask someone who has been robbed at gunpoint by a Black person to be less afraid of Black neighborhoods, regardless of the hurtful bigotry of their acquired bias.
As I heard it, you don't get to have a place free of racism. You can only mitigate its destructive effects.
Because of this, the online tendency to gather ideology into a perfect model rational reasonable list of beliefs is doomed.
I think this is plain wrong but I'm having difficulty articulating precisely why.