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
This take is so stupid, it doesn't warrant a response.
What does the word 'take' mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use..
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I'm sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You're being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn't warrant a response?
Well I don't talk like that because I'm not an insufferable redditor. If I have a problem with something someone said I don't make a smug meta comment about how I'm not going to engage despite engaging. I'm going to directly address the problem I have.
That dude's comment was 100% troll baiting. No one makes such braindead arguments in good faith. Why would I waste my time? Now, I'm curious.. why are you so upset about my response to a blatant troll?
What a child. Now quoting to you the meaning of a word is a 'braindead argument'? Speaking of someone's brain not working, your only arguments are to handwave with thought terminating cliches.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you're pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I've read further shows that I'm obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I'm a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don't. Pacifism.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I'm sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I'm not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn't want any punches thrown in the first place.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
This is the main point I was making. In the context of discussing pacifism, which condemns all war, supporting any war is pro-war, at least relative to the actual meaning of pacifism.
Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.
Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, "turn the other cheek," and "be good to those who hurt you," and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.
Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.
No, because I'm not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.
Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.
As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.
The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.
If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.
This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you're not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?
If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I'm a pacifist, why not. We're all pacifists. It means literally nothing.
Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - "Pacificism." "A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace." I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life who doesn't meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a "Pacificist." Completely meaningless.
Your second source I can't access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.
I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I'm a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn't. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.
If a person uses a term you don't think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It's not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word "correctly" even though that's not how words work.
For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you're not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?
Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?
If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I'm just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don't understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don't get to tell them it's wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
I don't give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I don't think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can't see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can't help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you can't tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I can't help you. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russia's invasions.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren't one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. "Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves." That's all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say "Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad"?
So let me make sure I've got this right.
I go out and murder someone in cold blood. People call me a murderer. I tell them that I'm not a murderer - yes, I did take an innocent life by choice, but I don't like the way "murderer" sounds, so I don't apply it to myself. You don't get to decide what terms apply to me.
Got it. For the rest of this conversation, let "Nobel Prize winner" be defined as, "Lemmy.ml user." I am a Nobel Prize winner, we both understand how I'm using the term, so it's valid and you don't get to tell me otherwise.
As a Nobel Prize winner, I think this is completely ridiculous.
So should I automatically oppose all separatists who accept help from other countries? I don't agree with that. I think the question of when succession is justified is a complex and nuanced issue.
As far as I can tell, you are exclusively opposed to violence when it's your nation's geopolitical enemies doing it, and you have no problem with your side even firing on civilian targets. The same as pretty much anyone else, no matter where you go.
It's very funny to me that for all your claims about respecting the labels people apply to themselves, you go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth and assign positions to me that I don't hold and have not said anything remotely similar to.
As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are "wrong". That's not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn't know your definition. Your argument isn't a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.
I haven't said anything about my positions on any topic. I'm not sure how you gathered what I support. I have called out your ridiculous attempt to define pacifism in a way that most self-identitfied pacifists don't, claim that others are using it wrong, claim that the definition from an authoritative source is wrong because you don't like it, and now collapsed into "I guess all words are meaningless then". It's not my problem that you don't understand how words work.
You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don't have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things. If you think I'm wrong, you can correct me. I didn't assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use. I extrapolated from what you have given so far, which is a defense of everything Russia has done and a sideways condemnation of everything Ukraine has done. Add a splash of references to Lenin and complaints about America bad, what else do you think someone reading this thread is going to see?
Are you saying you don't support Russia? That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders? Of course not!
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto. Why do people in your camp always play the same "I'm just asking questions, I have no opinions" bullshit the right always plays? Just say it. Just say "America bad, Ukraine bad because America supports them, Russia good because America doesn't like them."
OK, great! So, if you accept that I'm a Nobel Prize winner, then for the rest of this conversation, let's use "Nazi Germany" whenever we're talking about Ukraine. Sound good? Exactly how far are you willing to roll with this?
You seem to think that I don't understand that language is mutable and collectively defined. I understand that just fine. What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation. I've picked absurd examples hoping to illustrate that point, which you seem to be failing to understand. Yes, you can understand what I mean if I define terms differently, but if you give me license to define terms however I want, then I could make all sorts of unreasonable things sound reasonable. If you're really committed to this stubborn, inane exercise to prove that language doesn't matter, then I can go through the effort of redefining terms until your positions sound equal parts absurd and vile, but that seems like quite a bit of effort to prove a point that should be obvious.
You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.
Oh, I see. So the rule that I get to have complete control about which things apply to me or don't only applies specifically to things that are phrased as labels. Truly fascinating. Where does the line get drawn, exactly? You can't call someone a murderer because that's a label, but you can say that they murdered someone, because that's not a label (even though it means the same thing), but what if you call them "A person who murders people?" Does that count as a label? What is it that's so special about labels that gives them this special quality that doesn't apply to other words?
No, I don't, they should seek peace.
No, they should seek peace.
Incorrect.
I have. The "secret positions" that I'm supposedly hiding are entirely your invention.
You literally still don't get it. It's not that it can change and is collectively defined, it's that language is entirely defined by the meanings used by the specific members of the conversation. General uses and society at large have nothing to do with it.
Ahhh ok. So you think it's manipulative to use a word like pacifism if they don't use it the way you, a person who isn't a pacifist and has apparently never looked up the definition or works discussing it before, define it. Got it. Good to know your intuition about what a word means is the gold standard of what other people can do without being manipulative.
Oh, so you didn't say any of those things? You didn't say you were a communist? You didn't reference Lenin? Are you trying to say that you haven't been excusing Russia's actions (like talking about "Ukraine bombing civilians in the Donbas" ) and trying to argue against Ukraine's? You know your previous comments are still visible, right?
I love that you think that using the same words would imply that you think they are on equal footing. They aren't. If Ukraine wants peace, they will continue to fight for peace. What you really mean is that they should capitulate so that Russia gets to keep the land they stole and rule over the citizens they haven't raped, kidnapped or killed yet. If Russia wants peace they can fuck off back to their own country. I love that you somehow think that both are equally wrong in a situation where one autocratic government invaded a democratic neighbor and continues to attempt to steal land and rape and murder civilians.
Cool. So we're just going back to pretending that you've been commenting on this thread for hours because you really have no opinions whatsoever. You were just asking questions! Good to see you upholding the long-standing tradition of Nazi apologists and MLs alike of hiding your true positions because you're incapable of defending them!
Hey buddy, I'm not a pacifist. Never claimed to be one. I also never provided a personal definition of pacifism. You are the one who said that the encyclopedia of philosophy must be wrong in their definition because you don't like it. You are the one trying to condense a topic of much discussion for thousands of years into a black and white "for or against violence in all forms" kind of pacifism. If you don't like the definition, take it up with the people who wrote them and the people who have argued over the specifics for thousands of years. Once again, someone is not not a pacifist simply because you don't agree with their definition. Your definition of pacifism is identical to appeasement.
Lol. Yes, listening to the people who believe a thing and explaining how it's complicated to an outsider intent on painting it in black and white terms is totally stolen valor. Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself. You're not a vanguard. Just because you want appeasement in this conflict doesn't mean anyone else should give a shit about your opinions, especially considering that you didn't even know there was debate about this among pacifists until today. You don't get to define that term for them.
Ya, it's totally me that's been an insufferable cunt this whole conversation. Definitely. And you totally didn't say "I'm a communist" or "I look to Lenin" in your previous comments. Got it.
Oh ya, it's totally a coincidence that you have been shilling for Russia this whole conversation, identified as a communist, referenced Lenin as an authority, and said Ukraine should "seek peace." Totally unrelated things that definitely have no connection whatsoever. You think I was born yesterday? You think this is the first time I've interacted with a tankie too chicken-shit to say their true opinions?
Look I'll show you what it looks like to have conviction in your opinions:
People like you are a plague on the movement to make a better world. Your insistence on providing support and cover for totalitarian ass-holes with red paint makes it impossible for anyone to take actual socialists and communists seriously. Your defense of genocide and war crimes shows the rest of the world that people like you don't actually want a better world, you want one where American doesn't exist, even if every civilian on earth had a worse quality of life. You make actual change impossible by pretending that you will one day have enough influence for "the revolution" while doing shit-all to actually make things better in the mean time. You reject democracy and anything that would help people now and are somehow delusional enough to think that if we let people get fucked over enough we will have our "revolution" in a way that totally wouldn't result in far worse outcomes for everyone. You are larping and it hurts the people who actually give a shit about making things better now on the road to making them even better later. You are the reason that our movement is forever chained around the neck to the failures of the past. Men who claimed to want to support the workers of the world while killing and disappearing anyone who got in the way of their personal pursuit of power.
What the fuck did you mean by "Russia should seek peace" then? If they want peace they can fuck off! They don't need to seek anything, they need to get fucked. By painting both sides of this as equally needing to "seek peace" you are creating the image that they are morally equal. Combine that with your weak-ass attempt at what-abouting the Donbas shows me all I need to know.
No one cares about the "theoretical influences" of your opinions. You've been "just asking questions" while defending Russia and claiming Ukraine should stop defending itself. Constantly trying to act like both parties are equally wrong and both should just stop fighting the other. One party started this war by invading the other. One party has been documented kidnapping, raping, and killing civilians. One party has had to make mass graves. One party has been condemned by practically every other country for their abhorrent actions in this war, the other hasn't.
It appears that I don't need to be present for this conversation, you just want to rant and rave at ghosts and the strawman you've invented in your head out of nothing. You have fun with that.
Literally right next to each other. Incredible source of comedy.
Btw, if I didn't know better, I'd say you just assigned the label of "tankie" to me. What happened to everyone getting complete control over what labels apply to them 🤔