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
If he hasn't shown genuine remorse than changes my stance.
Given what I had read on the matter I was under the impression he had shown remorse. Particularly the "biggest mistake of [his] life" remark.
True remorse would involve an apology to the victim. At least I think most people would think so.
I disagree with that. There’s no need to put the victim on the spot like that. True remorse definitely doesn’t involve rejecting culpability like that though.
How is making a public apology to the victim putting them on the spot? I would say that a public apology is almost literally the least he could do for her.
It means she has to decide if she’ll listen to it, when and how she’ll be able to process it, and whether she forgives him. All of that in public? Not a chance in hell I’d want my rapist to do that.
Only if people expected her to respond, which they wouldn't. The press would not be clamoring to see if she accepted it. They haven't even named her as far as I know, since she was a minor, so they wouldn't be able to.
Because all of that would be true regardless of whether he apologized in public or in private.
I've never heard anyone take a stance against a public apology before. This is honestly a very strange stance.
It’s still just hanging there, over her head, even if nobody expects an answer.
Weird, most of the people I’ve talked to while witnessing public apologies agree that they’d feel awful to receive. I don’t really talk about it in other scenarios, so I don’t know how common it is.
Which would be just as true if he apologized in private.
Thread got removed for me, possibly because I swore, but I don’t think it’s productive for the victim unless they seek it out. It’s too easy to load it with double meaning and use it as an opportunity to hurt them further. The only way to avoid that would be to use boilerplate language that doesn’t mean anything.
I absolutely don’t suggest a private apology! He should just leave her the hell alone forever
You are against apologizing to someone you've hurt? Really?