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 have kids. I am fucking livid that the assholes who pretend climate change isn't happening have decided to sacrifice their kids and mine on the altar of making a quick buck.
You can't eat money, assholes. And you can't bring it with you when you die. If the future is nothing but more and more severe weather to the point that civilization collapses under the strain, then I hope you live long enough to see it and are unable to hide from reality anymore.
They have the money and/or ignorance to continue hiding from reality
They think they do. No amount of money will protect a person from the collapse of a civilization. Never has, never will. Their plans are very much predicated on the assumption that markets will somehow magically continue to function after the general populace has lost all faith in them
What about the ultra rich that have built bunkers and have their security outfitted with locking, exploding collars to keep them in line?
I forget who, but some consultant said that they did a talk with a small group of the ultra wealthy that are doing this.
Edit: This is what I was referring to https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
I think the reference to collars was more a hypothetical in the article as the author was challenging the bunker dudes how would they ensure the people keeping them safe remained loyal, and that none of them considered anything like "treat them like people before the cataclism", it didn't even occur to them at all, instead they proposed a bunch of more controlling measures, which included "disciplinary collars"
They can buy themselves a few years at best without a functioning supply chain. We all depend on society, no matter how much they like to deny it
The ultra-rich will still be dependent on their retinues of loyal followers, whose loyalties will of course be tested by the collapse of civilization. Unless their retinues are robots, of course.
That's it! We take all the rich and politicians and stick 'em in "FSD" enabled teslas for a while. The problem will solve itself.
These billionaires imagine they're rich because they're brilliant, not because they're the biggest assholes and lucky (and born rich). They overestimate their independence from all the people and other creatures that actually make the planet and human society work. Once they get to their bunkers or their Mars outpost, perhaps reality will gradually get through to them. They can't escape this using bunkers, rockets and weapons.
They have the money to potentially avoid repercussions long enough. This is especially true when collapse is relatively gradual
Why did you choose to have kids knowing what kind of future they would have? This is the reason I didn't, and also to reduce my footprint in the world. I mean even 20 years ago, it was obvious nothing was going to change. So I don't know why somebody would willingly have children these days.
Sometimes, in an intimate relationship, babies.
Every time, choice.
I don't really like this narrative where we make people feel bad about having a kid. People are allowed to have kids.
“We need to take drastic action to avoid causing our own extinction via climate change and leave a habitable world for future generations!”
People have kids so there will be a future generation
😠
and other people are allowed to react to it
The holier-than-thou attitude on Lemmy is arguably worse than reddit
someone disagreeing with you is not holier-than-thou
Well the guy acts surprised, like nobody has seen this coming for 50+ years and especially the last 20 years. Put some thought into having children before you do. If more people did, we wouldn't be as deep in the shit as we are today. And people are allowed to criticise other poeple for having kids when they shouldn't.
Hey, this is a fair sentiment. I took your tone initially as a judgmental one, but after rereading, I think I assumed too much. Thanks for the reply
Cum in her mouth or ass or tits. Get a vasectomy.
Yeah right, like I'd give away my cum.
No kids = no future
But, bringing kids into this mess is practically immoral.
The world has always been a mess. What's your solution, wait until the world has solved every problem before anyone has kids? Humans would never have even evolved if that's the plan.
Even nature is fucked.
I don't have a solution. You don't either. And those that can do anything about this shit, won't, because it'd cost them some of their precious precious money hoard.
Climate change is basically teetering at the feedback loop point, if it's not already there. Inflation is out of control. Corporate profits across the board are at an alltime high. Shit's only going to keep getting worse from here.
The problem is you having kids...
No... its simply not. Maybe Jimmy John and Mary sue having a dozen offspring in missouri are a slight part of the problem but your average person have one or two is not the problem.
As with everything in this world: Its the corporations. They are the problem. No amount of reuse, reduction, or recycling by any individual would even register on the graph of emissions/carbon footprint when compared to even a tiny company
I do agree that its irresponsible to subject yet another human being to the future we are careening towards
I mean, I get what you are saying, but if for a few generations only every 10th family would have only 1 child, GHG emissions would fall drastically. Having a kid basically more than doubles 'your' own carbon footprint.
Is this the only, the necessary, or the preferred way? Ofc not. Is it the biggest impact I can personally have on global warming? It is (voting, protesting, buying local & sustainable helps, but whatever you are doing the kids are doing it too).
It's sad bcs there are so many ways we could solve this (at least achieve carbon neutrality, tho we need more than that now), but short-term profits of the current elite would suffer a little tiny bit so we can't do it.
But additionally now we do need to prep to mitigate consequences and damage control (on top of green/ESG investments) ... I wonder if all those profits will be used to finance this ...
117.7 tonnes of Co2e per kid per parent per year in the USA (58.6 tonnes average when including all the poorer countries).Wynes et al. 2017
A conservative estimate is that we need to emit less than 2.1 tonnes in total per person per year to try to prevent catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change. Girod et al. 2013 (life expectancy/2050).
117.7 > 2.1
We need a fertility rate of about 0.01 for several decades.
Human overpopulation is not only the biggest contributor to push us into a climate-change tipping-points cascade, it's also the root cause of almost all its other causes. It's also the root cause of unsustainable habitat loss and pollution. It's also the root cause of factory farming and industrial fishing, which causes more pain and suffering every year than all other atrocities ever committed combined.
As for corporations, they're not burning the planet for shits and giggles - they're psychopaths doing it because billions of people are choosing to buy their goods and services, which they want but don't actually need.
This is why we have 2A in the US. Maybe we should start thinking about using it.
Every 2a person I've ever met who talks this way wants to shoot the wrong people.
It's almost like maybe we shouldn't rely on the lowest common denominator to resolve complex nuanced issues, huh?
You've never talked to a single socialist, anarchist, leftist, etc. about civilian firearm ownership before? It's very commonly thought of as a necessary evil to prevent systemic oppression. Maybe don't spend so much of your time talking to trumpers and neoconservatives?
To wit: there is no "right people" to want to shoot, and anyone who thinks there is probably has their own tribalism issue to work out. Community defense specifically does not have a target right up until the point someone else is an aggressor, and ends when violence is no longer needed. This is why you never saw "antifa burns down trump supporter's house" or whatever in the news.
Oh yeah sorry I forgot to mention I'm in an area where redneck right wing stupidity abounds.
Yea fortunately im not a redneck. I totally understand how that line if thinking can make people uneasy. I think 2A is more useful in an "arm the workers" type of way
No, it’s not. It also solves nothing.
You sound unhinged.
Yeah man, that Thomas Jefferson guy was a real unhinged fuckwad.
uhh, yeah? he fucked people he didn't consider human, he's at least unhinged as a dogfucker
Yeah, violence is the answer... 🤡