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
Not a great sign, if she's going to go out of her way cozy up to him it's back to Uncommitted for me. Certainly don't want to, but I guess we'll see if Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with this.
"She might meet a foreign leader who is doing bad things, so I'm not decided between her and Project 2025."
Really?
I won't support pro-genocide candidates. Yes really.
She really should not be meeting with right-wing fascists.
Meeting with someone ≠ Endorsing them
World politics is about negotiation. I’d rather she tucked into the conflict and tried to improve the situation than ignoring it.
You're talking to someone who just told me that it wouldn't even make a difference if Trump marched U.S. troops into Gaza.
You're deeply dishonest.
And yet that's almost literally what you said.
https://lemmy.world/comment/11358062
So it's weird that you're calling me deeply dishonest.
Trying to cut out context is dishonest.
You want to believe that the IDF is held back by lack of personnel, but they're not. They are not being held back from anything they want to do. Putting US soldiers in Gaza does not add to their capacity to continue the genocide exactly as they wish.
Zionists keep trying to convince everyone that Trump would be worse on this, which is simply a way of refusing to accept the reality of just how bad it really is.
There is no context in which "more dead people is not a worse outcome" is a moral answer.
And the context in which you said that saving one life during the Holocaust didn't matter?
I'd say most people here would be absolutely willing to save a single person's life from genocide.
You're not understanding what I was saying (or you're continuing to try to intentionally misrepresent what I was saying).
Using your analogy, you're the one saying 6 million deaths is acceptable as long as it doesn't get to six million and one. You're trying to simultaneously say we need to accept mass slaughter to avoid mass slaughter, it's nonsense.
The "six million deaths" are happening in Gaza right now. They are actually suffering and dying, but you're telling us we should accept that since you're afraid of not being able to kick the political can down the road and kerp pretending everything can be fine.
It doesn't matter, I can't make you understand why rewarding the Democrats for genocidal fascist policy is a losing strategy when they're suppose to be the alternative to genocidal fascists. You either let yourself understand it or you don't.
That is not what I am saying at all. If you're going to accuse me of intentionally misrepresenting what you're saying, don't do it to me.
It can be endorsing, yes. There's a reason so many democrats are not attending -- going to Netanyahu's speech lends him legitimacy and a greater perception of support.
Stopping the genocide doesn't require negotiation, you withhold aid until they stop.
But as I keep saying, Harris will need to find way to signal that her meeting isn't in support of Netanyahu. If she goes in and is giving him hugs and holding his hand up in unity and that kind of bullshit, that's a really bad sign. It can go either way, I'm just stating that I won't support genocide just because it gets a fresh face on it, Harris needs to prove her commitment to holding Netanyahu to account in a real, material way.
Anything but voting for Harris would be supporting Trump, an even worse pro-genocide candidate. You can't equate Harris, who's calling for a ceasefire, with Trump, who gave Israel Jerusalem and is telling Israel to keep going with the genocide.
"Anything but voting for Trump is supporting Harris."
Nonsensical, right?
Biden and Trump are equally bad on genocide, there is no "worse". If Harris chooses to signal she's continuing Biden's genocide support I'm out again. I'm willing to compromise on Harris' generally but nothing has changed in my tolerance for pro-genocide candidates, and nothing ever will.
Luckily not funding genocide is an easy hurdle to cross. We'll see if Harris manages to do it.
Yes but that's the "things are bad (Harris), so might as well make them worse (Trump)" attitude.
No. This is about Democratic support of genocide. I simply won't support any candidate willing to help kill and starve children.
If Dems want my vote the price is the same as it's been; don't support far-right fascists committing genocide.
Very, very low bar.
Bullshit. You'd find some other reason to whine and discourage others from voting. No one's buying your both sides shit.
Nope. I've been supportive of Harris up to this point since her stepping forward as potential nominee. I genuinely hope she can demonstrate that she's against the genocide.
There will be two candidates to choose from who are going to collectively get 90+ percent of the vote. You can vote for the lesser of 2 evils or waste your vote on third party.
"Genocide is bad, so I'm going to support the candidate who supports ultra genocide with extra genocide at home instead"
There's no such thing as "ultra genocide" and if there was, it's already happening in Gaza and it's being fueled by a Democratic administration, not a Republican one.
I would consider calls to nuke Gaza ultra genocide
Do you know nothing about Project 2025? It will cause more genocide. Genocide in your country.
Do you want to see Latinos carted away and queer kids committing suicide after being forced into "conversion therapy?" Because that's exactly what Trump will bring.
I won't support genocide in another country to spare myself from potential harm, no, that would be morally bankrupt.
I don't vote based on fear. I can't be threatened in that way.
Yourself? This isn't about you.
How about all the other people? Millions of people. Fuck them? Because she's just having a meeting with the perpetrator of a different genocide on the other side of the planet? A genocide that Trump will also perpetuate and has already said he would make worse?
So essentially your refusal to "support genocide" in another country will make that genocide worse and add more genocide to the mix.
But hey, this is all about sparing you from potential harm, right? Fuck all those illegals and homos.
You dismiss the idea that the humanity of Palestinians is equal to your own. Its ok for them to die under the bombs and weapons we supply to Israel, as long as it allows us to avoid our own domestic discomfort. We differ on this fact.
I'm part of the groups that will probably be most immediately effected by a Trump admin. That fear will not push me to support a genocide.
If the American system is broken and corrupted then we as Americans should be facing and reconciling those problems ourselves, not transferring our own potential discomfort and suffering overseas to kids that are out of sight and out of mind.
For fuck's sake, it's also not about me.
It's about millions of other people. People whose lives you apparently don't care about. I guess they're too brown or too queer to be part of that whole 'humanity being equal' thing.
I am just so relieved that most people seem capable of understanding nuance.
By all means figure out if you can somehow give us a better candidate. But when it's time for you to actually do something real, remember to play the hand you have.
Ah, so you're pro fascism and Trump. Got it.
I'm anti-genocide. Biden's policy on Gaza is fascism. It's the same at its core as Project 2025 or any other far right agenda. He's funding the slaughter of innocent human beings.
I'm not far-right, so I won't support it. Hopefully Harris chooses not to as well.
You're not dumb and you've heard it a thousand times I'm sure, but you live in a country with FPtP voting and is therefore a two party system. You know that not voting or voting third party in the general election only benefits Trump. The ONLY chance of things getting better in Israel is if Kamala wins, even if she doesn't do anything, because the alternative is things get worse. Those are facts.
Damn near everyone is anti-genoocide, but most of us realize the reality of the situation. Kamala may make it better over there, Trump will make it worse, and there is no third option. As mentioned there's one option for your vote that isn't pro Trump. Voting for Kamala is the best option for Israel regardless if you think she's doing good enough for your beliefs.
If you disagree, tell me how you think any other vote will help Israel. If it's purely a moral choice, explain how you think it's morally better to turn your back on the problem knowing full well the facts of FPtP, vs voting for the best option that may make things better. The possibility of betterment is better than no possibility at all.
In the worst case scenarios, personally I would rather say, "I voted for Kamala hoping she would improve the situation in Israel which didn't happen" instead of, "I voted third party / didn't vote at all, and Trump made it worse in Israel". At least in one situation, there's a chance.
The election system is first passed the post, that doesn't mean that's where our political agency and influence ends -- we just proved that with Biden stepping down. We created a third option.
A large enough number of people said "We will not vote for a zionist" and it had a real world effect on the behavior of the party. That never would've happened if people just accepted that Biden was running again and there was nothing we could do.
This is not true. There are many Israel supporters, even here on this thread.
I'll assume this was a freudian slip and you meant help Gaza.
The only hope Gaza has in regards to the US is if we actually work to hold our own politicians to account. Republicans are a write-off, but Democrats are suppose to be the more moral party that has a baseline on human rights.
That notion needs to be enforced by voters, Democrats need to be held to at least the most basic of standards.
When we vote for an out and proud genocide supporter we move the Democrats further from reform that would help Gaza. If we vote for a pro-genocide dem it's the exact same to the people in Gaza as us voting for a Republican, and it has the added effect of signaling to the party that voters will accept genocide support from Democrats.
It should be unacceptable.
And if she signals support for Netanyahu during the visit, I would rather say that I voted against a future of continued genocide support for the Democratic party.
You're correct, I meant Gaza, or improve the situation in Israel.
It wasn't pro Palestine protestors that got Biden to step down. It was the pressure from his declining mental state. Policy didn't have anything to do with.
I do stand by my comment that the majority of people are anti-genoocide. If every Jewish person in America was pro genocide, that would still be a minority of people.
I still don't understand how with all of those facts, you could possibly justify not voting Kamala when it seems your single issue is this particular issue, not that it's not significant. There will be one of two outcomes in November, Dem or Rep. Unless Kamala does something exceptionally unhinged before the DNC, the candidates will be Trump or Kamala. One will 100% be worse for Gaza. Not voting, voting third party, or voting Trump are all the same thing in reality.
All of this ignores the fact that it's a much more complex issue than yes or no.
You guys are just scrambling to throw stuff at the wall just to see what sticks, aren’t you? Nothing but F.U.D
In her place, Trump would be lauding how great he thinks the US-Israeli alliance is and commit twice as many resources to Israel in the process. Acting like Harris is anywhere near as bad as Trump on the issue of Palestine is either being grossly naive or intentionally deceitful, while not voting for her just because she isn't pro-Palestine enough is counter productive when Trump is far less so.
Again, we haven't seen if she is as bad as Trump yet. Biden is, we know that, and it's a large part of what made him unelectable. If Harris picks up the genocidal mantle she's inheriting that same unelectability as far as I'm concerned, it would be a politically stupid move.
We have to see now if Harris will take deliberate steps to distance herself from the genocide support of Biden. Meeting with Netanyahu is not a good indication, but it's yet to be seen how it plays out.
Wow, seems like that crystal ball of yours is in excellent working order still. How do you keep it working so consistently for so long? Is it the rock polish?
What crystal ball? "I guess we'll see." is fortune telling to you?
we criticize the Republicans for being single issue voters, yet we're doing this? come on. people's lives are at risk here at home too.