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
Well if UBI is indeed a safety net, than it's really just extended wellfare at that point. Seeing how wellfare is already a quite controversial topic. I do not see this going through political-wise. Unless there is an absolute massive wave of unemployment by the effects of automisation. Which could unify both ends of the political spectrum on this topic.
I am on your side. But I just don't see this realistically happening (right now).
People already arguing for UBI specifically mention how taxes are already paying for them, through welfare systems.
Their argument is that it's actually cheaper to pay people a lump sum than to go through traditional welfare services.
True, which is why this framework is doomed for failure:
"...participation in education, training or the labour market” is not required to receive UBI, and that funding for other social services are not cut."
Other services must be cut to finance this. Pretending otherwise provides ammo to the nay-sayers.
We are currently spending the same amount of money (possibly more due to fraudulent claims) on things like AISH, EI, special credits, etc. THAT money will turn into a UBI and streamline everything through less hoops and agencies, saving taxpayers even more money.
It’s cheaper to do it this way but people slap a “welfare” tag on it and hand wave it away because I’d that stigma, much like you just did.
There have been a handful of studies done around the world already if you’re actually interested in it. Almost all of them are positive outcomes.
That's my point though. Justly or unjustly so, it is a controversial topic. So you need to convince conservatives otherwise. And boy oh boy, I think that task is even above UBI's paygrade 🙃.
I’m just expanding the conversation a little bit, I’m not necessarily trying to contradict or disapprove anything you said.
And I appreciate you for that ^^
Plenty of younger conservatives already accept the benefits of UBI on the rationale that they're already paying for welfare.