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 clue what he did (have not yet read the article). Haven't really consumed any of his media. But I did buy a coloring book based on some TV show he did?
Anyway, I bought that book because of how fucking weird it was. I remember thinking at the time the artist behind it seemed like a pretty twisted up dude.
I'm surprised everyone else is surprised, but my perspective is fairly unique - not having experienced/enjoyed any of his art beyond some crazy coloring book without the context to understand the pictures.
This is probably one of those perspectives that's best kept to yourself - or at least not shouted through a megaphone, as is the effect of posting your thoughts online. Please don't take my tone as harsh or judgemental there, just friendly advice. I know you mean well, but your unique perspective really doesn't give you the opportunity to grasp just how much Gaiman seemed to genuinely be a good person. He wrote the kind of stories that were powerful and meaningful to marginalized people in particular. He focused on voices and perspectives rarely given the spotlight at the times when he was writing, and he wrote sensitively and thoughtfully about issues facing women, queer people and people of colour despite being, to my knowledge, none of those things himself.
For a lot of people this is genuinely heart breaking. It's easy to say that you should never put anyone on a pedestal, but Neil was one of his rare people who really seemed like he deserved the acclaim and the trust that he was given. While I absolutely get that you mean no harm by what you're saying here, it unfortunately comes across as very smug and self-serving in a situation where a lot of people are dealing with a very real and very justified sense of abject betrayal.
I agree. I am hearing what you're saying, and I feel the loss of finding this out about him. However I've had a similar experience of wanting to like Gaiman because he checked all the right boxes, and just feeling put off by something in his writing. And thinking it was a problem with me. It's easy for the mind to see this news and say, aha, that's why I didn't like him. But that's the benefit of hindsight. Who knows if things like this, the hidden part of people's personality, are actually detectable in their writing. Anyone feeling like I do is just trying to make sense of it all the same as everybody else. And it's important to recognize that he was a role model for so many and did good work with his fiction, and not trying to say it was obvious, because it wasn't.
That's a good point. Not to be rude but most people are not good writers. Well-meaning attempts to rationalize for oneself can easily deform into reading like "smug" attempts to incorporate hindsight into somehow prophetic vibes. I try to give people a bit of grace because the consciousness to (attempt to) perceive how your text might be read by others is not a trait oft emphasized.
This comment didn't need to be made.
You really, really should use this as an example for yourself in the future to read the room. That means read the article before making a thoughtless comment on something you obviously didn't fully grasp.
As if the comment section is some sacred place where only somber reflection can occur.
I genuinely liked the other person's thoughtful response.
You just seem bitter.
You apparently still haven't read the article. Given the reactions to your comment, you may want to go see why the comments are "sombre", as you put it.
It's behind a paywall for me. Did you read it?
I did. It's a culture vulture article, you just need to use an incognito tab.
As unpleasant as the content is, just read the article. And remember that lots of folks have trusted Neil Gaiman for a long time (I'm 50) to tell stories they connect with, especially in the 90s when there were fewer writers to do so.
https://archive.is/J31rj
You may have liked the thoughtful response but you clearly didn't heed any of it.
Every comment after the first has been a response to someone else's comment to me. You're saying I didn't heed any of that comment because I ... responded to other comments?
I... don't understand why you felt the need to share this. You didn't read the article and aren't familiar with his work? What is it that you are contributing? What are you saying that others should hear?
Respectfully, it sounds like you are talking to hear yourself talk. Not every memory or thought I'd worth sharing, in fact, most are better left unsaid.
Especially when it's about coloring books in a thread about systemic and repeated rape.
I found it interesting to think about his darker side hidden in plain view all along. Didn't seem like the sort of thing that would be offensive.
It's clearly a bad faith statement to characterize my comment as being about "coloring books" in a thread about "systemic and repeated rape".
Read the comments. People are upset they don't get to like one of their favorite authors anymore. That's what the thread is about.
You evoked rape to strengthen your argument? That's fucking gross.
It's literally what the article is about. Which would've been a faster read than you arguing with pointing at your out of place comment. Not informing yourself is a very odd thing to get defensive over.
Cool. This is about a rapist who enjoys inflicting pain on very young women, but I'm glad you enjoyed the coloring book of someone else's art based on his stories.
(He's a writer, not an artist.)