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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
Which I also find understandable. I disagree with non-voters, but if both choices are terrible, and fight against what you want, I understand why people wouldn't want to vote.
The proper way to communicate an opinion that "both choices are terrible" is to make your way to the polling station and either vote for something other than those two bad choices, or to decline or spoil your ballot.
Not voting says "I can't be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine".
People think it means "Give me something other than these two", but it takes more effort to communicate that message.
Political activism requires effort, and it requires effort the right way. Not voting is political inaction.
I mostly agree with you, which is why I voted 3rd party, and I still recommend that others vote. But voting can take a lot of time and effort, which most people are short on. I think a lot of people would vote, if they thought their vote counted, but with the two major parties we have, it clearly doesn't.
I see it as less of "I can't be bothered to make the effort; anything is fine", and more of "Both of you fight against what I want, why would I bother"
Because voting is one of the least effortful political action that can be taken, and it can send one of the biggest messages.
Democratically-elected politicians get their jobs by people's votes. Their campaigns are based around getting votes. And they can look at numbers of how people are voting to adjust their platforms to capture those votes.
There's little benefit for them to try to capture the votes of people who don't vote because people who don't vote aren't likely to vote.
That's enough to win an election. I know they wouldn't all vote the same way, but that's a HUGE population -- enough to potentially make a third political party relevant, for instance.
I know that you vote, and I know both major parties in the US suck. I think we're generally in agreement here, so I know I'm probably preaching to a member of the choir. I'm just less sympathetic about it because I know that if everyone in the US who was eligible to vote but didn't all voted with their intentions, upcoming elections would look very different. And I think it's a combination of learned helplessness/defeatism and laziness/apathy that's causing this.
As such, I will always advocate for the power of voting. And I will always admonish people who don't vote and complain about the result.
Yup, we are mostly in agreement. I will push back on this though:
For a lot of people, taking a day off work, to spend hours in line at a polling booth, while voter intimidation is kind of allowed, is a lot of effort. Especially when you factor in that they need to spend time researching the candidates and issues they'll be voting on. I've lived in places where even getting registered was a huge pain, and took a lot of time. Where I currently live, voting is super easy, and I appreciate that, and I think it's less of an excuse. But for a lot of people, it does take a lot of effort, and I find not voting in those circumstances more understandable.
There is a long way to go in some places to make voting more accessible, approachable, and available, yes.
I think that other political actions tend to take more effort and more work, or they tend to be less widely impactful.
Complaining online and sharing memes, for example, is easy, but does next to nothing.
Calling your local official or writing an email/letter to them can change local politics, but just like voting can be harder or easier depending on where you live, getting your message to go somewhere other than their garbage bin can take a lot of time and effort... probably more than voting. And even there, that's only one politician you've influenced.
Larger political actions that are stronger than voting definitely exist, but I think the majority of them come with greater risk, more effort, or a larger time investment (like protests, running for local office, etc).
Voting sends a message to politicians nationwide, if not just statewide. And like I mentioned elsewhere, there's little incentive for politicians to take the opinions of non-voters seriously.
I understand why some people kill their families and then kill themselves.
I’ll still put forth that it’s bad, destructive, and wrong.
Bad analogies are bad