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
We're talking about George Galloway here.
Also your evidence is that Corbyn praised another person's book which contains one specific line? Did Corbyn praise that particular line? Or did someone read the entire book the conveniently find it and even remove part of a sentence?
You are reaching really hard here. As I said, show me the anti-Semitism from Galloway.
You seem to have completely misunderstood what is happening here. You seem to be under the impression that we are debating about whether the party is antisemitic or not, while I just shared that they've had their share of allegations about antisemitism, which is really not subject to debate (or shouldn't be) but rather just something that has happened.
He seems to have been under constant accusations of antisemitism. Not the best move to call a book that has lines like that a "great tome" if you ask me. Fuel to fire, at the very least. And I don't think he denied the antisemitism in the book, but called it a "work of its time". That's a terrible look no matter which way you look at it.
But in any case, I'm not here to debate Corbyn's antisemitism. I just said that this party's allegations of antisemitism comes partly from their defence of Corby who has had plenty of allegations himself.
I get that you want to debate me on this antisemitism or clear the name of these parties or persons, but I was just saying that the party has had plenty of allegations. Wikipedia article bringing them up doesn't seem particularly sus since the allegations are real, no matter how we view the veracity of those allegations.
Yes that is a from 1903 book which contains one line which Corbyn never said he agreed with. It was not written by Corbyn. In all old books you can find and cherry pick lines that are currently not fully accepted. Make sure you never read an MLK speech you'd condemn the heck out of em.
Wow very anti-semitic. So many allegations of Corbyn supporting Gaza against their Genocidal oppressor. He must be super anti-Semitic.
Anything serious? I have read the zero effort copy pastes you brought. Please find an actual quote or don't respond.
I'm not sure if you're trying to explain the situation to me or what, but it was never unclear. The article talked about all this. And I don't think you typically write the foreword to a book yourself to begin with. It's just a terrible look to have this "great tome" comment and your foreword on a book that has antisemitic stuff like that.
"Fully accepted", it was just the straight up Jews control the banks stuff. It has probably been fully accepted last time in the 40s hah.
This was the part you should've read:
"You seem to have completely misunderstood what is happening here. You seem to be under the impression that we are debating about whether the party is antisemitic or not, while I just shared that they’ve had their share of allegations about antisemitism, which is really not subject to debate (or shouldn’t be) but rather just something that has happened."
"I get that you want to debate me on this antisemitism or clear the name of these parties or persons, but I was just saying that the party has had plenty of allegations. Wikipedia article bringing them up doesn’t seem particularly sus since the allegations are real, no matter how we view the veracity of those allegations."
The allegation you linked was basically Corbyn saying Free Palestine and an israeli lobby calling it anti-Semitic. And he said that israel committed Genocide, which is supposedly also anti-Semitic. Is everyone one Lemmy anti-Semitic too?
Are you talking about the Wikipedia article?
Yes did you read it before posting it?
I did and the top articles that came up when searching it. Not all of them because there's been loads, it seems.
Yes and they are all from people that call criticism of israel anti-Semitic. Do you realize that?
It really doesn't seem like that if you go through the different accusations. But again, what I said was
I don't think we disagree on that?
No we do disagree on that. If I post 20 comments accusing you of murder without any evidence you don't have "a lot of allegations that you committed murder."
This is clearly a futile converstation
I mean if you'd have 20 people accusing me of the same thing over the years I'd think it's fair to say I've had quite a few lemmings accusing me of murder. If you put that into my Wikipedia article I'd be fine with that.
I mean I tried to explain what I said but you've just wanted to take it in all kinds of directions. It might not always be a fruitful convo if you do that.