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
Honestly. If a couple bourgeoisie take some strays for Trump's awful policies I'm not gonna shed a tear. Who the fuck cares about a Belgium queen? I care about the working class kid that isn't gonna graduate. Fuck the Queen.
There's a near zero amount of working class kids studying abroad at Harvard
Do you think this policy is only going to be unique to Harvard? Your comment is ironic because it's upvoted by the same people disagreeing with me that don't care about a royal. But can't see the the the bigger picture of who this hurts.
The entire criticism I have is that it shouldn't take a royal for people to care and it's absolutely silly to write an article around it. It makes the absolutely wrong point about who is harmed by this. It's literally pro Trump. Use to trick his base into thinking the "elite" are the ones that will be hurt. They won't. They will at most be inconvenienced.
But you somehow miss BOTH points. Somehow not getting my point of criticism of the article AND missing the larger picture of who these xenophobic policies will hurt the most.
It's starts here. At the easiest place for American working class to say "yep, fuck the Queen". And solidifies xenophobic policies into law. All while idiot liberals clutch their pearls as "the poor queen".
You understand this policy as of now is only targeting Harvard. The article is about Harvard, don't pre-cope imo
Yeah. Famously no other universities have been targeted. We definitely don't have a green card holding student rotting in a cell for months at this point. With not a single charge of a crime against him.
Yeah. I'm sure this rich queen is the only victim. And Harvard has definitely been the only school targeted /s
This however highlights the fact that foreign students used to be a source of revenue for the USA. This is wealthy European money that was getting spent in America but now will likely be spent somewhere else.
This is also denying American Harvard business students the opportunity to establish lucrative connections with European money. You've heard of "it's not what you know, it's who you know"? Poor Harvard students on a full scholarship who plan on setting up their own business someday could have benefitted from being classmates with the future queen of Belgium.
My point being that even if you fully subscribe to "America first", this is still a really dumb policy that's shooting America in the foot. Foreign students studying in America were, by definition, bringing money into America. No longer.
Your points are speaking to a Trump voter that would never even care about those things because they would never actually apply to them. They live in a contradiction that doesn't apply to what you're saying.
You literally replied with talking points that only benefit rich well off bourgeoisie. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make or who you're trying to convince. Because this definitely doesn't appeal to the me (looking at this from a class perspective) or the idiot Trump voter (looking at this from a "fuck the elite" perspective).
The later of which is just, on average, an uneducated working class idiot that thinks we live in a meritocracy but blames the "elite" for their position in it. They lack class analysis to actually understand where to direct that anger. But Harvard and "Queens" are the definition of that elite to them.
Who is this article supposed to appeal to? That's my question. This is just garbage puff that distracts from the real problems with Trump's policies.
It only appeals to well off petty bourgeois Liberals that have nothing better to care about than some "royal" being effected by a policy that they are only, at best, collateral damage to.
See, that's bullshit because you can't be outraged that Harvard admits foreigners but also pretend to not care about or be affected by Harvard at all.
/woosh
The criticism is that the media coverage here is around some slight inconvenience to a royal. Thanks for pointing to the thing the article entirely misses and using that to point to misunderstand my criticism.
I understand. But Trump seems to like being invited by royalty (at least UK royalty). Also visited her father when in Belgium during his 1st term. Probably not, but if he isn't welcome because of this (among other things) next time, Trump could do something you do care about. He acts much more bourgeoisie than this princess (not yet queen) seems to act.
But hey, at least db0 have their idiot right here
Even a stopped clock etc