That article is referencing some 1999 sources and hoping nobody clicks them.
Not seeing any evidence of the claim. The video is irrelevant too. Anyone here got something more credible?
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
233 points (95.3% liked)
World News
38830 readers
2393 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.
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Special guest star: Charlie Kirk
Only a couple of posts above Trump's ally Kirk said children should see executions lmao. These two charmfully synchronized.
They're two sides of the same coin. Y'all Qaeda living up to its name once more.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I am not here to debate whether public executions are right or wrong but
“Carrying out executions in public adds to the inherent cruelty of the death penalty and can only have a dehumanising effect on the victim and a brutalising effect on those who witness the executions,”
If brutalizing here means people are gonna be shit scared after watching this when even thinking about killing someone, then this is a very bad argument
No. What happens is the spectators get severely desensitized to violence. Especially if the spectators are young malleable teenagers. And suddenly sawing someone's head off in front of a live broadcast becomes just another day on the job.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The brutalizing effect is the opposite: by seeing this kind of violence, people are more likely to normalize it and engage in violence themselves. That's the hypothesis, anyway.
Huh? After seeing this people will want to kill people? I am talking extra-judicial killing here
Suppose the theory would be that a spectator doesn't picture himself in the shoes of the executed. Instead they get used to the idea that killing someone isn't so crazy, if they think they deserve it.
I could believe this, particularly if it's on some subconscious level. The rational mind might say "that could be me, I better be careful", but getting desensitized might get rid of some fundamental revulsion. I'd also think the people at risk of committing murder are not likely to trend toward rational thinking, at least not in the moment of the crime.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It does not reduce murder or crime in general - but it DOES devalue human life
At least they retained the USamerican values after kicking them out
The Taliban were assholes long before 9/11.
I suppose they think something similar about your govt
Yeah, so? There are many assholes in the world, you know. Pointing at some other group of assholes doesn't make the Taliban not assholes.
Very insightfull. Is that a quote from Nietzsche?
The Taliban were US-backed and US-funded long before 9/11.
That's a common assumption that's based in "they're all the same over there" style of racism.
The group the US backed in the 80s was the mujaheddin, which went to form the government which the Taliban (a separate group) all but overthrew. The last remnants of the pre-Taliban Afghanistan government was called the Northern Alliance, which was allied with the US when fighting the Taliban.
It was politically convenient for the left to along with a racist narrative to score cheap political points against Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld etcl. And yeah, fuck those guys for sure, but it was wrong to go along with a racist narrative to do so. Because of the "they're all the same over there" kind of racism in both the left and right of the US, there wasn't much chance for any kind of success in defeating the Taliban.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)