This magazine is a joke
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
17 points (100.0% liked)
World News
46426 readers
2146 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They are the worst British paper. Besides the BBC, which is essentially subtle state propaganda.
Every time I look up a topic I get a Google ad from them and the headline always something not-so-subtly pointing to their ulterior motives.
I'm sorry... you think the BBC and the Economist are worse than papers like The Sun and The Daily Mail?
load more comments
(2 replies)
What is it with all the posts from the Economist? They are right wing capitalist garbage.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I take it folks saw the phrase cancel culture and downvoted?
It's actually a fascinating article. Odessa has been at the intersection of Ukraine and Russia for ages. Lots of Russian speakers who resisted Russia etc. But as the invasion goes on, people are being attacked for speaking Russian, statues of Odessa's most famous people torn down etc. And you can kind of see where both sides are coming from.
It's an issue I imagine almost none of us knew or thought about, if not for the phrase "cancel culture" why on Earth are we downvoting it?
Nah, it's because the article is bullshit.
The "kind of see where both sides are coming from" is de facto support for russian genocidal imperialism.
We don't need Pushkin statues, we have our own artists and our own heroes.
Getting rid of russian language and russian "culture" is a legitimate aim when your country has suffered multiple genocides and centuries of colonialism. Russian culture is trash and has no value. It's like saying Islamic state culture is legitimate. Would you be opposed to getting rid of Nazis imagery too?
This is just the economist's version of teenage edgelord posts. I would like to invite the author and their family to Donbas (this is where me and my family or from), we'll see what he thinks about Pushkin after that.
Except the Ukrainians in Odessa who speak Russian and feel they are Ukranian, fuck those people.
Odessa is not Donbas, it's a unique impressive area with its own history.
Edit: By I can see both sides, I mean I get the Ukranian fury at Russia etc. But I also understand that the people of Odessa have their own version of what being Ukranian is and means.
Ukrainians (in Odessa or anywhere really) are welcome to use russian (or Gujarati) in private. In the public sphere, the official language is Ukrainian.
I am aware that Odessa is not Donbas. What are you even trying to say?
Your waxing poetical about the russian nature of Odessa just like most russians (not only nationalists, you ever hear this from the alleged opposition).
Fundamentally it is not for you or (or the russians) to decide what the official language is in Ukraine, how we name our streets and how we choose to deal with centuries of russian imperialism.
For you this is purely a theoretical discussion. The reality of the matter is that russian language and culture are a tool of russian genocidal imperialism (just look at the state of say the Komi language, if you even know that such a language exists). To fight russian genocidal imperialism, you need to get rid of russian insignia and russian chauvinist, slave-mentality thinking. And yes, this also means recognizing that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine and that we have our our great artists and heroes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But I also understand that the people of Odessa have their own version of what being Ukranian is and means.
You could have said the same thing about Southern Confederates in the U.S. in the 1860s. They don't get to have their own version anymore.
Are you actually comparing Odessa to the Confederates? That's a real decision you're making?
Edit: trying to understand this take... Are you perhaps confused and thinking Odessa is part of Russia?
I'm saying that when your country is invaded, worrying about respecting the people who's culture is the same as the invader's is a great way to get a bunch of fifth columnists. And I'm not sure why you're not aware of that. Similarly, despite the many British people of German heritage, in 1939, their "unique British-German culture" was not relevant and was not respected and should not have been.
That's literally calling for genocide? You're telling a peoples (who are the victims of an invasion) that they cannot have their own culture because it's similar to an invaders?
No. It literally is not calling for genocide any more than it would be calling for genocide to say that the French should stop teaching kids German in school in Alasace-Lorraine before the Nazis invaded.
Yes, without a doubt denying children their cultural language and customs is a form of ethnocide/genocide.
Not teaching it in school isn't the same as denying it. No country teaches every language spoken at home in schools.
I suppose if the U.S. invaded Mexico and Mexico banned the U.S. cultural enclaves that had arisen there from celebrating July 4th, that would also be genocide?
Seems like genocide is not all that horrific in your view.
Article II of the genocide convention has 5 definitions, any one of the five is enough for it to be called a genocide:
https://iccforum.com/genocide-convention
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Attempting to eliminate a culture by restricting it's beliefs, teachings, or language would fall under (c). This is precisely what was done in the US and Canada with "Indian Schools" for example, and partially is what is being done to the Uyghurs in China, although they are also being subjected to (a), (b), (d) and (e) as well.
Indian Schools were boarding schools that forced kids to use English. That is not the same.
I gave two scenarios here: Public schools not teaching Russian in Ukraine and a hypothetical scenario where the very real American enclaves in Mexico were prevented from celebrating U.S. independence day if Mexico were invaded and asked if those were genocide. Neither of them fit that list and yet I have been told the former is genocide and, despite three responses, the latter has yet to be even responded to.
So I will ask both again, rephrasing one of them:
-
There are lots of Chinese-Americans in the U.S. If no U.S. public school taught Mandarin, would that be genocide?
-
There are American cultural enclaves in Mexico. If the U.S. invaded Mexico and Mexico told those cultural enclaves they couldn't celebrate the 4th of July, would that be genocide?
I would really appreciate an answer. Because if the answer to both questions, especially the first one, is 'yes,' the genocide is, as I said, not all that horrific.
-
No, because in that scenario there's a choice. Chinese Americans have the choice of attending schools where their language and culture is taught.
-
Absolutely. Because it's attempting to stamp out a language and culture with no alternative.
Isn't that similar to celebrating Russian Independence Day on June 12th in Ukraine? Or celebrating Hitler's Birthday in Britain after they joined the war? I just don't see how that's genocidal. It's not allowing people to celebrate the enemy.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Not teaching the local language in schools, to instead force them to use your own is denying it and it is genocide.
Go to China and look at how they are wiping our local ethnicity through exactly that, they are forcing generations to grow up learning Mandarin in schools, legislating that TV must be in Mandarin, etc. and through this they are causing languages like Cantonese to lose their daily usage and thus die off.
It's what a large swathe of Europe did during the 19th and 20th century, where local languages (and their corresponding cultures) were basically killed, e.g. everyone in France basically speaks Parisian France, with only Brittany holding out its culture.
Seems like genocide is not all that horrific in your view.
This is revolting to hear anyone say.
You entirely avoided my question and I think you know why.
There are enclaves of people with American heritage in Mexico. Some have been there for generations. If the U.S. invaded and Mexico said they couldn't celebrate the 4th of July, would that be genocide?
Dude France is guilty of serial ethnocide when it comes to languages. Dialectal variation was stamped out, too. No French school taught anything but French at that time, or really ever, and eradication of German was prioritised just as Breton was. Prior German rule was way more even-handed, with French being co-official in French-speaking regions, Nazi rule was as you'd expect, post-war the French continued their policy until 1990. They still haven't ratified the ECRML.
But I am not talking about post-war. That's a different issue. A treaty was signed. Hostilities were over. France wasn't at risk from a fifth column anymore. If the war is over and Ukraine continues this policy, I will change my mind, but this is what is happening during a hot war while they are being invaded by Russians.
Is the Ukraine banning of the Russian Orthodox church a horrible genocidal act too, despite the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church literally blesses Russian nuclear weapons and has ceremonies where they throw holy water on the troops going out to kill Ukrainians?
The Moscow Patriarchate is a direct Kremlin asset. If you ask Constantinople they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Ukraine in the first place, the Kyiv Patriarchate does.
Pushkin isn't such an asset, the Kremlin can't tell anyone how to read him and problematise his stance towards Ukrainian rebellion against the Tsar, just as it's possible to read Kant, problematise his racism, and still get lots of value out of it (especially since racism is incompatible with Kantian ethics).
The Russian language also isn't such an asset, the Kremlin can't tell people how to use it, and for what it's worth the Ukrainian army is to a large degree operating in Russian. Are you proposing that units switch to a language the soldiers aren't proficient in? Plenty of Russian-speaking soldiers were born before independence they didn't even learn Ukrainian in school, if born after, they might've flunked the subject.
Pushkin statutes? More complicated. For now I'd say put them into storage or build a box around them so that people don't have to look at them and talk about it after the war, right now the required nuance is a distraction so kick it down the road. Maybe the solution is to move them into a library.
Also FWIW Ukraine did ratify the ECRML. Russian is among 17 recognised minority languages. Being a native Russian speaker and being Ukrainian has never been incompatible, heck Zelensky is one of them. The purported ethnic conflict is a Kremlin narrative. Are we supposed to cancel "Servant of the people" (the series) because it's mostly Russian. Playlist with ENGSUB btw I highly recommend it.
This was the rationale behind America's Japanese internment camps, which in my opinion, weren't great.
I mean there's a happy medium between not allowing things like allowing them to openly celebrate Russian stuff and putting them in internment camps...
To be clear, you think Japanese Americans shouldn't have been allowed to speak Japanese anymore?
How long should this have persisted?
It’s like saying Islamic state culture is legitimate.
There's some damn nice architecture and geometry coming out of Islam. Would you tear down a nice mosaic just because they remind you of the worst aspects of the greater culture?
Would you be opposed to getting rid of Nazis imagery too?
Does whole-grain bread count as Nazi imagery? Yes, there's legitimately a single valuable thing the Nazis ever did, and that was propagating whole-grain bread. Germany wouldn't eat the bread it does today if there had been a loud group of people insistent on associating it with the Nazis, calling people who like whole-grain bread Nazis, the usual stuff the vernacular calls cancel culture.
I'd say if you want to say "fuck the Russians" then don't just destroy, but also steal and plunder. Say, Zemfira is in exile right now, she's up for grabs. Also, Tatar.
There's some damn nice architecture and geometry coming out of Islam. Would you tear down a nice mosaic just because they remind you of the worst aspects of the greater culture?
Well, I wouldn't dynamite a 1500 year old Buddha statue because I found it offensive, but an Islamic state sure did.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I know you're being glib and all, but you're not doing the russians any favours with coddling their imperialist thinking.
They need to figure out what their culture stands for and how they relate to it. They are not even close, even alleged russian "liberals" are raging nationalists outside of public articles in English or western conferences.
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I downvoted for The Economist.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/
But yeah, "Boo this newspaper for being one of the most credible and unbiased around! I hate it when reality conflicts with my preferred narratives!"
Thanks to that website, I no longer need independent thought or skepticism. So long as a website reports technical facts, I can't dislike their editorial decisions, range of opinions or their record of fuck-ups like becoming advocates for the invasion or Iraq. I will defer to the "unbiased" label slapped onto them subjectively by a website not necessarily ran by someone who can even read non-English language news from around the world or who uses a benchmark of bias that is partocular to their national, ideological and cultural context, which is likely very different from mine. Thanks!
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it's the one they use.)
I can reach back to literally today with their Gaza coverage. And no, "most" politicians didn't back it - this is exactly where you're falling short. I'm not British or American. An overwhelming majority of politicians in my nation and even my continent thought it was a criminal endeavor. Yet to you, that bias is baked into your national politics - "of course they supported it, everyone did!" I'm supposed to stake their credibility on how much they conform with the opinions of the British government? LOL! And exactly why I find your approach and trust in that website silly.
Oh, the mods at c/politics! Let's do a quick census on how many of them are Russian, African, Asian, can read news in more than one language etc.
What have you disliked about their gaza coverage?
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It'd be pretty silly to do otherwise "Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!" Lol.
Edit: I'd also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
Why the hell would you bring up the decision of the US government to illegally invade Iraq as an excuse for a British newspaper endorsing and calling for that invasion and promising it would be a boon to the Iraqi people? Is "Of course the Economist supports whatever Washington decides" is your argument for their being unbiased?
So, no actual complaints about the Gaza coverage then?
Edit: You might also actually read some of their articles about invading Iraq.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/02/20/why-war-would-be-justified
load more comments
(5 replies)
You may not agree with the Economist, but they are not a garbage source.
view more: next ›