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
I mean if they’re high in the judiciary they’re already guilty of something. It’s like billionaires, you know? Probably best to just get rid of the lot. Safer.
Or are they one of the ones stopping the corruption from spreading, but the lynch mob was convinced by the corrupt one that they were the real pedophile?
Also, black people were regularly accused of that in the U.S. during the era when lynchings were common.
If they’re in the supreme court, they are the corruption.
(BTW, I don’t agree with lynching alleged or sentenced pedophiles, just wanted to get in my little jabs at the court)
Seems to me like a supreme court is kind of needed. So how do you have one if everyone on it is automatically corrupt?
Some kind of institution with final decision making ability for disputes is needed, yes.
How would I have it structured? Something along these lines:
I’m not an expert and these aren’t exhaustive or anything, just a few ideas. Obviously the rules shouldn’t be decided by a single person, they should be decided by consensus.
Wouldn't that require everyone to have extensive knowledge of the laws of the land? There's a reason people go to law school for years. You can't simplify a nation's laws enough to have your system unless there was only one law and it was 'whatever the kind says is illegal is illegal.' You couldn't even establish proper courtroom procedure that way because everyone would have to know what is and isn't legally permissible.
No, not really - these kinds of decisions would be more along the lines of finding a fair resolution to a dispute, rather than the interpretation of specific law. That sort of thing is done with the intent to oppress, rather than remediate.
We basically have this system already for lots of crimes in certain legal systems based on the commonwealth, it’s called a jury.
So there also shouldn't be laws? Because otherwise I'm not sure how matters of law should be settled like this if people aren't familiar with the laws.
Sure, society needs rules, but they don’t need to be all that complex, and the real nuances or loopholes are better handled as individual cases
I think you underestimate how many laws you need to keep a nation functional.
Even Hammurabi had 282 written laws and his was a 'whatever the king says is illegal is illegal' empire.
You need laws to cover everything from murder to product safety to child custody after divorce. And none of those are able to solved simply every time because many cases have a lot of nuance.
On top of that, as I said, you need a lot of rules covering courtroom procedures. Expecting a random citizen to understand things like when something can be presented as evidence and what sort of questions a witness can be asked is expecting too much of them.
You make a great point - you do need a lot of laws… if the intent is to oppress people. Less so if you want a fair and equitable society.
You’re not really engaging with what I’m saying because you’re so assured and confident in your world view.
We don’t have to live in a hierarchical society where we are owned by our rulers. We can create a different world with our own rules.
I don’t know what those rules should be - no single person possibly ever could. My position is that the world we have is fundamentally, structurally, and intentionally unequal, unjust, and impossible to reform. We need to depose those who have created and enforced the current system and replace them with a new, fairer system designed from the ground up by all of us, not a new replacement elite.
It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, but if we don’t end capitalism, we will instead live to see the end of the modern human civilisation.
A system of laws has nothing to do with capitalism. Pre-capitalist nations had laws, so did (and do) communist nations. Laws simply keep everything operating smoothly. And if you have an entity the size of a nation, you'll need a lot of laws to cover the many issues regarding the many people in that nation. That has nothing to do with the economic system or the form of government.
There are no communist nations currently existing and there never have been any. I didn’t say that laws would not exist. I’m saying that the laws we currently have enforce and uphold capitalism, just as the laws of prior eras upheld feudalism, or monarchism, or whatever.
Okay, well then if laws exist, in your scenario, everyone would have to be equally familiar with them.
Sure. You can’t participate in a sport or a game without knowing the rules. So too is it unfair to expect people to participate in society without knowing its laws.
In our society, laws exist to be a cudgel wielded against the working class, but are not applicable against the ruling class except for internal power struggles. You already know in your heart that the people responsible for the climate disaster that we’re currently facing will never face justice unless we take it into our own hands.
First of all, that also has nothing to do with people needing to know the entirety of a system of laws if they are expected to be randomly selected to adjudicate.
Secondly, when are you going to take it into your own hands?
I didn’t say randomly selected, I said selected with some kind of fair and democratic process. Random selection I wouldn’t really personally feel is a good idea.
You’re still not engaging with my core point, you’re trying to pick holes. Forget everything you think that a “system of laws” has to be. Scrap it all. It doesn’t need to be complex or overbearing. It can be relatively simple. It doesn’t need people arguing over the specific wording of legal codes written in impenetrable legalese.
The intent is to have a system that is fair, equitable and just. Most laws can be replaced with the golden rules and the adjudication can be a matter of, “in this fair, or not fair? how can we resolve this matter fairly?” and deciding that with consensus in a way that does not itself break the golden rules.
It depends. The sooner that people like you realise that it’s our only chance, the sooner we can all take action. That’s why I’m taking the time to explain this. We need to work together. The few of us who already understand these ideas aren’t yet enough to make this happen.
A fair and democratic process requires a whole bunch of laws to ensure that process is, in fact, fair and democratic, so...
Keep chipping away at that mind prison. You’ll find a way out eventually. Have a great night!
Yes, it's a 'mind prison' to suggest that you can't have a fair and democratic election without laws to ensure that the election is fair and democratic.
By the way, I should point out that judges are elected in much of the U.S. Which is what you were advocating for anyway.
You are living your entire life in a cardboard box, saying “The walls must always be brown. The walls have always been brown. What colour would you make the walls?” and when I explain that there wont be walls, you declare, “nonsense! without walls, how would the roof be held up?” and when I say there wouldn’t be a roof either, you say “ah, but without a roof, you wouldn’t be able to know whether you’re looking up or down!”
Cool. You still can't have a fair election without election laws to ensure that.
Believe it or not, people are not all naturally honest and honorable.
You’re going in circles. I have never used the term “election”, nor have I said that there can be no rules. I have said repeatedly that rules would exist - just that they could be simple.
I absolutely believe that people aren’t honest and honourable. That’s why I have been talking about consensus decisionmaking and abolishing power structures. I fully believe that power corrupts and therefore all unnecessary structures and hierarchies must be abolished. That includes money. Governments. Countries. States. Courts. The police. The whole lot has to go. It is the only way for a fair and equal society.
And you’re out here talking about how US judges are elected, fucking lol.
You said they would be democratically elected. That requires an election. So give me these simple election rules please.
Yeah, go ahead and quote where I wrote the phrase “democratically elected”. I know my own ideology better than you do.
This is what you said:
If you didn't mean an election, what did you mean? What is a democratic process that doesn't involve a vote?
Yes, correct. Plurality or majority voting, which is how we usually talk about elections, necessarily imposes the will of a majority upon minorities, and is thus not democratic.
Again, I’m not saying I have all the answers here - acting like I know best, better than everyone else, is itself not democratic. My position is, and always has been, that we need to get together and collectively determine the answers to these questions through consensus.
All I can share with you are some of my own ideas, which aren’t anywhere near as inclusive as I would like. I try to consider other people as best I can, and I try to think of as many bases to cover as I can, but I am imperfect and I acknowledge that.
But ultimately the answer to your question is generally going to be consensus-building and involving all concerned people in the decision making process, in some way.
Please answer the question: what is a democratic process that doesn’t involve a vote?
I did - consensus building. Please google consensus decision making.
This talks all about voting, so I don't think I'm the one who needs to look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
I did a CTRL-F for “vote” and “voting” and didn’t see it mentioned once.
Look, I can tell that you’re getting a bit upset, it’s quite a shock, with having your world view challenged, so I’m going to back off for a little while and give you the opportunity to reflect on what you’ve learned and maybe do a bit of reading yourself to explore these topics a bit more. I know it’s a lot to take in all at once - there’s no pressure, you’ll get there, you’re a reasonable fellow, so I have every confidence in you. I look forward to building consensus with you in the near future and wish you a really pleasant evening. Take care!
Then your computer is broken.
This one was literally in bold and large print:
There's more, but that's enough.
Also, I am not upset and your condescension is noted. Hierarchies are bad, talking down to people as though they are your inferiors, on the other hand...
It’s like I told you, I’m an imperfect person - and apparently Wikipedia on mobile does some kind of lazy loading thing where CTRL+F doesn’t work. Anyways, like I said, you only just learned of this concept like a minute ago, so finding the word “vote” isn’t a magic gotcha. Go learn about it before you argue about it, because you’re just being wrong and obstinate. It’s late for me anyways so I need to get some sleep, if you want to continue being wrong about stuff I’m happy to correct you tomorrow.
Sorry for being a condescending prick - as above, I’m not a perfect guy, or even really a good guy, I’m just trying my best and sometimes people being stubbornly ignorant get the better of me. I mean what I said though - approach what I’ve spoken about with an open mind and a willingness to actually change and I’m sure you’ll at least find an alternative worth considering. Good night!
And what you say determines reality does it?
Cool, maybe start with not assuming what I do or don't already know about in the very same comment.
Well, didn't take long for that apology to stop meaning anything. Less than one sentence.
Good morning!
Don’t mistake my apology - it wasn’t for considering (or calling) you ignorant of the topic, because you are. Nothing wrong with that, we’re all ignorant of a whole lot of stuff. I’m ignorant about a massive array of topics.
There’s a really bad inclination of redditors to think that if you don’t know everything then you’re a fool, and that’s just not true. So let’s not do that - let’s be honest when we don’t know something, and take it as an opportunity to learn, rather than digging our heels in and refusing to budge.
Anyways, I hope you took the opportunity to learn about consensus decision making - I know it isn’t perfect, it’s certainly got its flaws, but I think it improves on simple plurality or majority voting by quite a lot. There are quite a few different models as hopefully you are now aware. I’m curious what you feel the best model for decision making is, what is your ideal? I’ve spoken a lot about my ideas but you’ve not really shared much yourself, except for your enthusiasm for rules. I’d be really glad to hear your perspective.
Cool, except, like I said, I'm not ignorant on the topic. You just decided I was. That's how I knew that consensus decision-making involved voting despite you saying it didn't and saying the article (which you obviously never read) didn't talk about voting.
And yet you keep lying about me being ignorant on this topic.
My favorite part about this is that, as I told you in a previous comment, I already told you I knew about it so you're not only lying, you're gaslighting.
Condescending, lying, gaslighting... anything else you want to do to convince me that you're a troll who doesn't belong here?
You can say what you like, but we both know the truth. Have you ever interacted with a delusional person before? It’s quite difficult, because you can’t confirm their delusions, but also just straight up telling them that they’re delusional isn’t very effective - they kind of close up and it’s harder to get through to them. So you kind of have to talk around it a bit, without directly challenging them.
I feel like it’s pretty apparent that you hadn’t heard of consensus-based decision making prior to our conversation. You’ve probably got some hazy ideas on the subject, but only from understanding the words used to form the term and some ideas about how a jury comes to make its decision, but you don’t have a firm grasp on the subject.
I can provide plenty of evidence to back up my belief:
Now, it could be that you somehow did actually know about the topic, and you’ve just acted as though you don’t for some other reason, that’s entirely possible, but I don’t believe it. But do you see how that’s different from me lying and “gaslighting” you? If I truly believe that you’re ignorant of something, then it’s neither lying nor manipulation for me to act as though you are ignorant of it.
It’s absolutely beggars belief that you would consider me a troll, but it’s reassuring in a way - you’re demonstrating that my arguments are persuasive enough that they’re beginning to threaten your ego, and you’re lashing out in self-defence. Your next step would be to block me or get me banned, to ensure that my words can no longer haunt you. You can do that, but hopefully my words will be a seed that can grow in your mind. Change is a long journey, and we often don’t realise when it has started.
Cool, more lying and gaslighting. But no, you're clearly not a troll, just someone who thinks lying, gaslighting and now just plain old insults are appropriate around here. They are not.
And your silly prediction is wrong. I am not going to ban you for this despite the incivility rule violation. I am just going to stop talking to you.
But you have just earned yourself the eye of a moderator who will not tolerate your rule-breaking with anyone else. Including if I see any in your recent history.
If you were capable of arguing further, then you would - so I’m really glad to have gotten through to you, thank you for your time.
Just so you know, you can ban me all you want, I can just create any number of new accounts, I can change my IP address, I can even spin up a whole other instance if I really want to. I don’t mind if you want to give in to your ego, you don’t need to find another excuse - or let this message be the excuse. I’m just glad that my time spent with you has been worthwhile.
Like I said - rules, in our present society, are for oppressors.