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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
But it's mere hearsay. Is your judgment so casual?
Hearsay, eh?
9 women, the youngest being 18, are all saying the same thing, and he also made them sign NDA's. [Content Warning]
In this world of fucked up authors, it's sad that I'm impressed that he didn't go below 18.
That we know about.
I'm already turning down any party invitations from him, i'll wait to hear underage before I worry about that one :P
You literally only know that because you heard somebody say it
Unless it's an AI or an automated response, that's how everyone knows everything. They either heard it or read it from someone else.
I see stuff and meet people in real life, actually.
And then they tell you things that you were not there to witness. That is literally how communication works.
You just seem to think that people you meet in real life are less likely to lie to you than people in an article that shows that a huge amount of research was done and I'm not sure why.
In real life you can talk to people that you know and see things with your own eyes. This is better than essays written by anonymous people on the internet.
And those people could be lying to you. Every single one of them. How do you know they aren't? Why do you trust them?
Surely you are familiar with the difference between real life and social media.
Social media is part of real life. Humans are not more honest just because you can look them in the eye.
Actually they are more honest. It's harder to lie. And easier to detect lies. And the repercussions for lying are greater. This makes for less lying.
And that's without bringing actual firsthand experience into the argument.
No, social media is good for many things, but it is ultimately just a child's cartoon. A ghostworld.
That is an hilariously naïve thing to say.
Also, I have met many real friends over the internet who I have only interacted with over the internet. I have a friend in Turkey I have never met in person but we feel like family to each other.
Just because you can't make personal connections here doesn't mean no one can.
There is infinitely more to human interaction than a stream of symbols and images. Trust me on this.
No, I won't "trust you" on that because you are wrong.
People for centuries have developed extremely deep and personal friendships through the mail.
Furthermore, we now have decades of people in long-term stable relationships where they fell in love over the internet.
Even before the internet, I met a girlfriend from another school via BBSes in high school. We didn't meet in person for months and it was no different when we met in person in terms of how we felt about each other.
Again, just because you can't make personal connections on the internet doesn't mean no one can.
I'm sure it was deeply fulfilling. Or some relative equivalent thereof.
How could you possibly know one way or the other? Are you psychic? Are your needs everyone's needs?
I know because I know what the medium is like. I have that perspective.
Again- are your needs everyone's needs?
And yet here you are sticking up for Gaiman because of what he said over what 9 women said.
I am only criticizing you people actually. There's a lot of room for criticism. Your whole process is retarded.
And yes, you are going after Neil like a mob of 12th century potato farmers.
Statistically speaking, the likelihood of someone lying about sexual assault is low, a reasonable estimate being around 3-4%. When you have 9 separate people making the same claim, it gives credance to the idea that the odds of their claims being false is very low.
What people? All I have is a story, same as you.
You also have a lot of downvotes because everyone else is far more likely correct. So there's that. This isn't a jury trial. He's not innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion.
I'd happily eat my words if reasonable doubt arose for half those cases. I want to like him because I like his work, but he legit has that kind of sordid and sad history that fucks people up.
Just be glad that his work stands on it's own without his hangups. After you find out the characters and themes Lovecraft used were because he was disgusted by interracial children it's a lot harder to keep that shit behind the fourth wall.
https://amultiverse.com/comic/2019/12/23/jk-rowling-and-the-league-of-disappointing-authors/
I have downvotes because I dare to contradict this gibbering mob.
heh hardly :)
Before such articles are published, the journalists would have had to have collected a lot of information and had the article reviewed by their legal team. For so many women out there, sexual assault is a very real and terrible thing that they've experienced, with around 1 in 3 women globally being subjected to either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime, and I would not even consider relegating their experiences to a mere "story".
Until you actually meet the witnesses or see the evidence, that's all you've got. A story.
You could suspend judgment.
You don't actually need to have a hate party. It's so 1984.
Go back to Reddit, douchebag.
Just block him he's a teenage troll trying to piss people off
You get angry at people you never met, based on stories written by people you never met.
Your anger is very cheap.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.