A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Can't read the article, but since the first sentence of the headline is already misleading to the point of being false, I don't care to, either.
At no point did Germany throw its doors open for migrants, this is a right-wing myth based on a gross oversimplification of what happened.
What did happen?
More Russian propaganda?
Yes, everything in the world is Russian propaganda.
Yes, the wall street journal is Russian propaganda. So are news sources in general. Best not read them.
Paywall, so no idea what it's actually saying. Anyway: correlation =/= causation.
Funny how you can have an opinion without reading it.
The comment you're being a douche to declares they only can read the title. The title makes two statement of facts formatted to imply that one cause the other. The comment you are being a douche to givers their opinion that correlation does not mean causation. The topic of the title and article is one that is widely discussed in all cultures and regions.
Do you really think being a douche was the appropriate response to this scenario? Did the person make preposterous claims under some false front of reading the article when they actually didn't? You post an article protected behind paywall, then act like a douche when someone comments? They clearly were interested in reading what you took the time to post so explain why your response is so abrassive? I admit I'm way over the top in my reply to you about your response but fuck that was such an annoying way to act.
Maybe you shouldn't expect everyone to either subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or understand how to bypass paywalls if you want something to be discussed.
I guess?
European countries opened their doors to immigrants not for altruism but to flood the labor market and devalue labor to generate more profit for European oligarchs
Good old Wall Street Journal. I am sure if they could they would be flipping migrant boats over as they tried to make land.
The Wall Street Journal is NOT a garbage source. You are free to disagree with them in the comments, it is not removable.