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 [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
view the rest of the comments
It seems more effective to get short term rentals banned in their city by organizing and speaking to their local city council.
Squirting unsuspecting visitors with water guns seems ineffective and unlikely to achieve any results.
Yup.
Like many cities around the world, AirBNB (and similar) redirecting housing into short term rentals has had a massive negative impact on long term housing for local residents.
Well, that and the constant crackdown governments do on new construction. AirBNB takes housing out of the supply and over-strict zoning prevents new housing from coming in.
ABnB is the worst. Once it moved away from "renting a room in an occupied house" to "become a landlord with less steps and no oversight!" it became a blight.
You mean the zoning laws, that demand houses to be built for people living in them instead of tourist short term rentals? Yeah bad bad zoning laws.
There many things wrong with many zoning laws. Of course it's dependent municipality, but in many places light residential is given preference, neighbourhoods are designed for driving. Wide roads designed to have higher speed limits so aren't all that walkable. Zoning is done separately for residential, commercial, and industrial. So there's no shops close by to walk to, so gotta use a car.
It all adds up to neighbourhoods that aren't all that livable. But older parts of a cities that were built before all this zoning are walkable, there's a good mix of housing and shops. Those places are were people want to live. But also where tourists want to stay.
Bad zoning laws indeed.
The town hall intends to ban short term rentals in a few years. Definitely far too slow, but it has gotten to the point that even politicians who want to see their city's coffers grow fat admit that it's an economic activity that does more harm than good.
I love it. If they protest peacefully like this, it's innefective. If they are violent, or destructive it's innefective. Do you really think if talking with politicians worked we would be in this situation? They are trying to get more attention to the problem and this worked perfectly.
I'm noticing this tactic a lot of people shitting on activism by handwringing about "Oh I'm totally one of you and I totally agree with your goals but your tactics are just going too far!"
MLK decried this exact thing in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
Attacking tourists is not exactly a solution and will just fuck their economy up even more.
It's water
In a hostile context even the most harmless of things can become weapons.
For example, do you care if the guy in school gets a bucket of water emptied above them while being ridiculed by bullies?
It's just water at the end, so what?
This analogy is a ridiculous false equivalence.
How so?
It illustrates the hostility experienced by the target. It's just water, which is by itself harmless.
But:
In the one case it is a demeaning gesture by bullies, which does imply so much more than "just water".
In the other case it is experiencing aggression, possibly being shouted at or insulted, which also causes more than "just water".
How would you feel?
You plan a trip to the city, with your partner and kids. And then you come accross angry people who tell you to fuck off while shooting at you and your family with water pistols.
Would you feel the same way about this as if it was just raining?
To me, and probably a lot of people, this is certainly another and far more hostile experience, which is also not a pleasant one.
Because your analogy is ignoring both the volume of water involved and the context that surrounds both actions, one being actual bullying.
There is a world of difference in the psychological impact of a bullied child being soaked with a bucket of water by their peers and strangers being squirt with water guns by locals as a form of protest.
In the former, I would be dealing with peers and the feelings of social exclusion that come from bullying and unacceptance. People in my peer group would likely have been there pointing and laughing. There would be fear of having to run into my bullies on a daily basis who would be specifically targeting me as a single individual for no other reason but aggression or to assert dominance or whatever reasons a bully would have. The bullying period would likely have no definite end in sight.
In the later, I would at worst feel a bit of embarrassment and maybe some annoyance. Maybe I'd worry about running into the protestors again. But then my trip would end and I would be home. The protesters also are unlikely to be following me and my family around as specific people to harass and will instead be protesting generally.
And yeah this just comes off as Internet debate stuff to me. I said "it's water" instead of specifically "it was a water gun squirt". "hmm, having you ever considered tidal waves though. Water can be violent". Wow. Thanks.
And again, my response was to demean the overdramatic use of the word "attacked".
If someone jumped out of a bush and squirt you with a water gun a few times then ran away, would you call emergency services and tell them you were "attacked" by someone? If so, you really think that would be a good use of your local police force's time and wouldn't be exaggerating the situation?
It's incredibly soft to describe being shot at with a water gun as "attacked". Sorry. I hope a 5 year old doesn't "attack" any of y'all this summer.
I see what you mean. However, it was at no point my intention to equate the severity of those two different contexts. But given your interpretation, I understand why you found it to be a ridiculous comparison. I just wanted to highlight that even seemingly harmless things can become a tool for harming someone regardless of the actual severity. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough before.
Given that this protest is performed by adults and not 5 year olds, and assuming that they are not shy about their hostility towards tourists, I would argue that the severity of such an confrontation can linger for a while with someone. I am absolutely sure that this would keep my mind busy for a while if it were to happen to me or those close to me. Therefore, I would rank this higher in terms of severity than a child being silly. (Of course it would be no match with being bullied.)
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't interpret the wording in such a dramatic manner like you did. I've seen it in a more general, abstract manner. Not in a way that would motivate me to call the police, no. Almost like the phrasing "verbal attack", which is also understood rather lightly. It seems this is why we've got into this misunderstanding. So thank you for clarifying this. :)
Just because you don't understand his point doesn't make it a false equivalence.
Yes a kid being bullied by their peers in a school with a bucket of water is the same as adult tourists in a foreign city being squirt as a protest against rampant overtourism. Why didn't I see the overt similarities. It's definitely more than just the use of water
See, I said you didn't understand his point, and you've just proven it. He never directly compared those two acts, but in your stupidity, you can't seem to see something that obvious.
The point is idiotic and ignores all context between the two acts. It literally does compare the two acts or it's irrelevant to bring up. That's what an analogy does.
Except for dumb as shit Internet debater assholes who base their usernames on mid tier novelists, I guess.
Your point is idiotic, that's why it's easily countered by an analogy that is not relevant to the story. Maybe you should've countered him with a better point, instead of relying on overused talking points such as false equivalence to avoid thinking more logically. His point was only to show how stupid the point you brought up was, not to serve as an analogy to the real act.
Not only are you unable to think logically, you even had to rely on mocking my username to try and win this argument. Why so desperate that you had to use such a classic Internet debater move? The projection is really just the icing on the cake.
No, you see:
The original user didn't reply to my disagreement like a maladjusted prick, unlike you. So they got a civil disagreement back.
Unlike them, I do hope you get "attacked" by a 5 year old with a water gun this summer. 🤓
What if they have an allergy to water?
It's totally harmless and works to grab the media attention.
It got them enough attention to make it to the CNN...
You make a point, but I still question if a CNN article will achieve the desired results. People ought to discuss with their local representatives to achieve things.
Now that I know about this in Colorado, surely it will get better
Their local representative probably doesn’t give a shit, but now that it’s making international news and making them look bad they might act.