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
Would that really suprise you coming from Mexico? Like good on the people to elect them, and respect for being them for open about who they are, but the country has some serious issues and this isn't near the top of the list unfortunately.
You say that like they didnt legalize gay marriage, elect LGBTQ allies, strengthen and protect abortion laws in response to the roe vs wade overturner, and legalize pot. And that's just to name a few.
Oh and you don't lose your house if you have to go to the hospital without insurance.
Say what you will about Mexico, but in some aspects it's more advanced than United States. At least when it comes to the red states.
I didn't say anything like that in my statement. I also didn't imply anything like that in my statement.
Don't put words into people's mouths.
Honey, you don't need to outright say something for the implications and subtext to be there.
And sometimes there isn't subtext. Or you just absolutely miss the fucking point.
What exactly did you mean by this? Because it sure reads like you're saying "Mexico is unfriendly towards LGBTQ+", because you think this shouldn't be surprising "coming from Mexico".
There is evidence for a counterpoint to this implied statement: that Mexico is not unfriendly to LGBTQ+, but your response to that evidence was "I didn't say they didn't (enact legal protections, etc etc), don't put words in my mouth", so what exactly did you mean by what I quoted from you?
In a country that has a high amount of politically motivated violence, an elected official (especially one that would be progressive) being killed isn't really a surprise to me.
Legal protections does not equal a friendly attitude. As I have experienced in my country (as we have had legal same sex marriage since 2005, and being allowed to serve in the CAF since 1992 as LGBTQIA+ individuals and being the second country legalise pot nationwide, second to Uruguay).
We still get warnings about kidnapping and cartel violence when we book trips to resorts there (among all the other warnings like the water isn't exactly safe).
So yeah, a memeber of my community being murdered while in a position of power in Mexico isn't that big of a surprise. My initial thoughts was this was cartel violence. And apparently one of the AGs in the region demonstrated a lack of empathy or corruption in thier initial statement. But it could be violence against them for being NB.
So yeah, sad but not a shock.
Right, so, you do mean "violence against LGBTQ+ people is unsurprising from Mexico"; so the other poster wasn't putting words in your mouth, they correctly interpreted your meaning.
What they said was
You gave a very valid and pithy response here:
Glad we could clear that up! 😊
Legalising pot is probably just a concession to the narcos
It's fentanyl now. Pot is cheap and easy to grow in Mexico.
Yeah, but cartels can still produce it
lol there is no way Narcos want legalized drugs. Not that weed makes up any significant percentage of their business.
Why wouldn't they want to sell a secondary product without any government meddling (not that the government has that much power lol)
Legalization would bring in more government meddling, not less. Exactly as you said, the government doesn't have that much power. Cartels currently have full control of production, distribution and profits. They do not want regulations, taxes and dealing with competition in uhh... less confrontational ways. That's even if they'd be allowed into the market, which is unlikely.
Legalisation means the government won't even bother to pretend to fight cannabis trade
No it doesn't. Speaking from Canadian experience, legalization was a crackdown on the wild west of dispensaries we had here.
Canada has a central government, Mexico only in name. Don't compare the two
If you want to toss out that argument, fine. Cartels don't want legitimate competition at all. Legalization would flood the market with startups that they couldn't control or compete with.
I don't know why I'm debating you on this.
... that's not going that works.
While it isn’t surprising in Mexico, it is also not surprising from any other country either. Not sure what’s the point of singling it out.
Yeah honestly if something like this happened in one of the redder states in the US I would not be remotely surprised.
Living in a red state, I would? It's not every year that an elected official gets whacked, even one that's a member of a hated minority. For reference, there's been 57 assassinated government officials in the US total: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians
Saying "Eh this is just par for the course all countries are like this" feels like it minimalizes the problem.
"Not every decade" is maybe a poor choice of words given your supplied evidence. Though technically it does look like 2 decades were skipped... but a handful of decades had more than 5 to make up for those skipped decades.
"Not every year" would at least be a much more defensible statement given your provided context.
Yeah, that's fair. FWIW it's still uncommon enough that "Eh it happens" isn't reasonable.
That might be due to our heavy government surveillance system. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that a militia was arrested before they could carry out their plan to kidnap the governor of Michigan. The year before that a Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested before he could kill journalists and Democrat politicians. There was that nutjob who took a hammer to Pelosi's husband's head (Didn't even catch that one in time!) There's tons of attempts to assassinate presidents. Kinda feels pretty par for the course.
But the original point, I think, was that it's kinda weird for someone to say it's not surprising for it to happen in Mexico, as if it's some third world country run like New York in Escape from New York while pretending it doesn't happen in the US frequently. The US is just a bigger police state so they catch most of them before anyone dies. The FBI has plants in militias and groups like them all over the country specifically to catch this kind of thing. Most governments just can't afford that kind of manpower. The US is not special or really that much safer, and comments normalizing this kind of thing for Mexico is why anyone even made that argument. It's definitely shitty, and probably racist to think that it's reasonable, when it's in Mexico, people say "Eh it happens.”
What? This would be pretty damn surprising, please don't fight ignorance with more ignorance, it's not a good look
Pretty damn surprising to you maybe. I'm speaking for myself.
It would be surprising they were stabbed not shot?
I would be surprised they would elect a LGBTQ+ friendly politician in the first place
In general, or just in red states? Cross-referencing LGBT politicians with their states' historical political leanings, an openly LGBT politician has been elected or reelected while their state was considered republican a total of 96 times. The lead is actually a three-way split between Florida, Georgia, and Arizona, each with a total of 9.
So. Less than it perhaps should. Way more than you'd think.
I would be surprised they were stabbed rather than shot. US conservatives are too cowardly for a knife fight.
Pretty sure asassination of politicians is up there with the rrst of serious stuff that thr country has problems with, what kind of take is yours?