211

Factory in Western Ukraine Caught Making Uniforms for Russian National Ski Team (www.kyivpost.com)

submitted 10 months ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 25 points 10 months ago

Maybe they had poisoned inseams?

[+] Aux@lemmy.world -11 points 10 months ago

No, they just need money and Ukraine is completely fucked economically right now. Also Ukrainian government is still cooperating with Russia in many ways. For example, Russian gas still flows through pipes in Ukraine, Russia still pays money for transit and Ukraine is happy about it.

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

I see a lot of text but no links

[-] 018118055@sopuli.xyz 14 points 10 months ago

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/30/why-russian-oil-and-gas-is-still-flowing-through-ukraine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine

It took me less than a minute. I don't know about Ukraine's happiness, I suppose someone else could look that up.

[-] hemmes@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the links. The Economist is a paywall, but the wiki's always a good read.

This article from Columbia is a good read as well (and no paywall). It brings up a good point that the volumes are down to "around a third of their pre-war levels." Which makes more sense than how the OP was presenting things. No way you'll simply halt that kind of economic relationship so quickly. But they go on to say that transit flows are still very much at risk.

I guess I'm just trying to point out that Ukraine is very much at war, but both belligerents depend on each other economically, which certainly defies expectations, as they say.

[-] 018118055@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

Thanks. Sorry for paywall, the article was readable linked from a search as is often the way. Archive.today will open it.

The economic codependency is surprising to some but logical I suppose.

[+] Mango@lemmy.world -31 points 10 months ago

A link is just pointing at someone else saying it. What makes someone else a better source?

[-] XbSuper@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Their journalistic integrity. You are no one, therefore your word carries no weight. Link sources, or don't expect people to believe you.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

What makes someone else a better source?

They have a history of adhering to facts, so they've built up a good reputation.

You can look them up on mediabiasfactcheck.com and other independent fact checkers like Snopes to see how much of a reliable source they are.

[+] Mango@lemmy.world -11 points 10 months ago

Oh boy here we go.

The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.

Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible. I'm surprised to see their old reputation is still holding out with some people.

Nobody is a good source. Material needs to stand on it's own. Everyone has a camera, but only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.

Lies as in deception and not human error? If I'm reading that right, it sounds like there may be some trust issues on your part but I'll let you elaborate.

Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible.

Did they? By who? Can you... *ahem*... provide a link? Because that at face value sounds like you're poisoning the well. You keep casting wide generalizations without backing them up. Sure, I could look it up, but I want your sources specifically for various reasons.

And I'm just gonna say that of course every source has a degree of accuracy to them because the world isn't black and white, which is the reason why reliability is a spectrum.

Nobody is a good source.

I'm sorry but it's screaming trust issues again but harder.

Material needs to stand on it’s own.

Can you elaborate? Because I'm also getting weird vibes from this one.

only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation

This is simply not true, not in the world of AI and not in the world of Photoshop. If you can't convincingly manipulate a photo using free tools and/or pirated software, then it's a skill issue. See here for more details.

[-] Mango@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Why do you think I should just trust? I can't go more than a few seconds in a day without someone trying to sell me some bullshit. I don't have a trust issue. I have a distrust feature.

You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago? Why would I bother cataloging that shit? I can't even keep the world from stealing everything I've ever worked for. Do you think I'm just gonna look it up on the spot to appease your little act when my whole point is to figure shit out myself?

Well established sources can hire skill with all their money they make with sensationalized nonsense. I can't just pick that shit up. I gotta spend 8 hours a day making the land owners some money and after that I'm fond of enjoying myself.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I'm not saying you should "just trust" but that you have an issue with trust that's getting in the way of a healthy skepticism and exercising critical thinking. I'm all for distrusting the internet but you can't just raze it all and call everything lies. Especially when you then turn around and spread hearsay.

You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago?

No, I want you to look it up in less than a minute. That's less than half the time it took you to write your comment. It serves many purposes like:

Proving it to yourself as much as proving it to me
See how skeptic or gullible you may be by the type of source you do trust
Make sure we're on the same page
Sticking to facts instead of relying on memories

You're saying you don't want to participate, so why should I trust you at all? Because In less than 30 seconds I found this:

We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to an investigation that indicates a co-founding editor engaged in plagiarism. The plagiarism was not related to Fact-Checks and they remain credible for fact-checking.

Full story here.

Two highly reliable sources mean they're reasonably trustworthy, and way more trustworthy than you are, random chatter. And it turns out that what you remember from many years ago is quite different from reality.

So if you don't want to participate in "a little act" that's fine, but at least don't spread false claims. After all, we do live in a society.

[-] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The only issue you have with my trust is that I do not trust you and what you think are the cheat codes for belief.

Two highly reliable sources mean they probably have aligned goals.

I'm not spreading claims. I'm showing people how they don't have to believe under pressure.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

These aren't cheatcodes. Maybe they're shortcuts for like degrees of certainty with low margins of error, sure. But do you think I suspend my own critical thinking immediately when I read them? I'm aware that that specific piece of info could be faulty. Do you really think people are this naive? lol

Two reliable sources that coincide with the source means they're being truthful. It's weird that you dismiss them without good reason at all.

See how your own distrust colors your perception here? Could there be collusion? Sure, but it's highly unlikely but you're almost certain. Why? And besides, you're foregoing so much more, ironically risking the spread of even more misinformation on the internet that you already distrust for the sake of an ideal. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. lol

Like I said, I'm not denying that there could be collusion--and even drifting ideals or whatever--but I'd be more concerned about whatever you have going on if I were you. There is such a thing as objective reality, after all.

I’m not spreading claims

You literally just spread misinformation based on your own faulty memory and I caught you red-handed. How can you even deny this. I won't convince you that what you're doing is questionable or that your reasoning is faulty, but at least stop doing the very thing you're complaining about.

[-] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 7 points 10 months ago

It’s all a really weird theatre isn’t it? This geopolitical stuff.

Perhaps Ukraine should advance alongside the pipeline, which Russian troops dare not shell.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

It may surprise you but inter nation deals during war are not at all uncommon. While we were bombing Berlin we were also selling them shit they needed and couldn't get without us in exchange for shit we needed and couldn't get without them.

Capitalism gunna capitalize.

[-] interceder270@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Why would that surprise him? He literally explained that's what's happening.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

You as in the reader not you as in the commentor who I think understood the meaning hence the lack of response.

[-] saywhatisabigw@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Who cares. It's not a military or major economic impact.

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023

211 points (97.7% liked)

World News

38563 readers

2651 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.
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.