this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
128 points (100.0% liked)

World News

46388 readers
2935 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Biden administration announced it will support a new Syrian government that renounces terrorism, protects women’s and minority rights, and dismantles chemical weapons.

This follows the ouster of Bashar al-Assad by the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization in 2018.

While the U.S. may reassess HTS’s status, ongoing concerns about ISIS resurgence and regional instability persist.

Meanwhile, Israel has seized the Golan Heights buffer zone amid condemnation, and Biden is coordinating with allies, including Israel, on the evolving situation in Syria and Gaza.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (12 children)

Could you be specific about which laws? I'm not saying you're wrong I just want to know specifically what you are saying the government is doing that removes protections from women

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The intent of those laws isn't to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's obvious you were waiting for someone to finally say abortion so you could respond with that.

If women are dying because of laws denying them medical care that could have easily saved their lives, that is the definition of not protecting women.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I was waiting for someone to actually state their position. It is a bit weird how no one would actually say what their opinion was and instead relied on people making assumptions about their position. It's rather terrible for communication imo.

You are right, women are being hurt by those laws, those are not anti womens healthcare laws though. As I said those laws are about the fetus. Women being hurt and killed is an unintended externality. People talk like there is a war on women here comparable to what the Taliban is doing when the US is one of the best places in the world to be a woman. That's not to say the US isn't backtracking but perspective is important.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's hard to perceive your "what do you mean?" as genuine, especially considering it wasn't a vague reference. I think you could have asked, "Do you only mean abortion or is there something else?" and communicated your points in a less passive-aggressive "trap" framework.

Additionally, the original point only stated US governments are not protecting women, which is true regardless of your stance on abortion, regardless of the intended target of the law and regardless if it was intentionally targeting, "a war on", women.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I'm unsure why people are expected to correctly interpret what they meant, yet I am required to spell out what I said. That seems like a double standard. Personally I felt what I wrote was clear enough as it was. I wanted to know what they meant by what they said, so I asked them what they meant.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)