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
Weren't people a bit more positive about monarchy back when Elizabeth II was alive? I feel like she had a sort of mystique that made her feel more legit for some reason.
He's widely unpopular in the UK because he's very politically involved via the massive amount of lobbying efforts he personally funds; something that the crown specifically promised not to do. Then there's Charles' hush money payments to cover up Prince Andrew's "indiscretions" with their family friend, Jeffrey Epstein.
As it says in that article, the hush money payments are strictly rumours. First Elisabeth supposedly did it, then Charles suddenly got a role in it too. The only source appears to be an anti-monarchy group, so not sure exactly how reliable that is (afaik the Daily Telegraph and the Sun published the accusations, and we all know how reliable they are).
We do know for a fact Charles stripped Andrew of his remaining royal duties, fully cut the money he receives from the monarchy (no wage and no money for protection anymore) and is trying to get him out of his current home, but apparently there's legal reasons making that difficult to do. He's a lot harder on Andrew than Elisabeth was.
And while he used to be quite political before he became king, he mostly stopped after he was coronated. That, as far as I know, got him more critique, because he mostly lobbied in favour of green policies against climate change.
Rumour has it that Charles is incredibly angry about the whole thing and Andrew is very much in danger of being cut off completely if he doesn't keep his head down, so while Charles has paid people off, he has not forgiven or forgotten.
There's also that he wasn't king at the time he made those payments and may have been protecting their mother rather than his brother at the time. Andrew, idiot though he is, was the Queen's favourite.
Had the Queen already been dead and Charles been king at the time the news broke, he might well have let Andrew suffer the consequences.
Uh huh, but then he paid hush money. But he is angry! He is furious about "the whole thing".
Dude, come on.
I never said what he did was right, only why he might have done it.
The rumor and further theorizing that had he been king during the "whole thing" he would've punished him somehow, makes you seem sympathetic instead of acknowledging that hush money was paid, he is still part of the "family" and isn't in jail when he should be.
She was more relatable. She had corgis. She loved cows. She was an ambulance driver and mechanic during WWII. Nobody likes Charles.
The Queen's face and name has been on everything for decades. There are Canadians in their 70s who never knew anything different. That's just the way things were. It was tradition. That's how I saw it anyways. Anyone who complained about it was just complaining about a symbolic action we've all been doing for generations. Nobody is actually swearing their life to the queen--it's just a tradition. Then she died.
Now some random old guy's face and name is going to be on everything. If we're going to change everything anyways, then why not change it to something different? The argument that was seen as a small complaint before now makes a lot of sense. If we're changing the words to our oath anyways, then why not change them to words we can all agree on?
Everyone loved the powder pink lizard queen.
Well, the current edgelords were still in middle school too.
It's cool now to blame the son for the rumoured sins of the grandfather, so it's empowering for people needing virtue to signal.
Rumored? Nah friend, there's enough evidence to believe the majority of the rumors. And nobody is saying Charles killed the kids or raped the villagers, they're saying he benefits from a dynasty and wealth built on the backs of those people, and so deserves no respect or allegiance. And that's outside of the fact that the monarchy means fuck-all to Canada at this point. In Britain, at the seat of their power? Sure, maybe. But across the pond where the culture, people, laws, food, history are different? Fuck the crown and anyone with an ordained 'right' to rule.