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
Cars need to go, streets need to pedestrianize, and bollards need to go up to make sure cars stay the hell out.
To your point, imagine if this were a mass-shooting and the title were: "Nine people killed after gun shoots into crowd at Vancouver Filipino Festival". "Nine people killed after knife stabs into crowd at Vancouver Filipino Festival." It's so fucking passive as to be sickening. It reminds me of the "Man dies in officer-involved shooting" trope we see in US media because extrajudicial murder by the police is so routine and heavily whitewashed.
The AP gives it the same treatment. The only equivalent I could think of is "Nine people killed after bomb explodes into crowd", and you know why that might be written that way? Because it's not immediately obvious who placed the bomb. This mass-murdering psychopath is in custody; we can say "Nine people killed after man drives into crowd at Vancouver Filipino festival."
Edit: the death toll is now eleven, not nine.
"gun-involved incident"
While I agree that it skews the narrative, it's likely that media at early stages of the story use passive language like that to leave open the possibility of various causes, such as mechanical malfunction or even an algorithmic failure.
It's not nessisarily skewing the narrative, it's just not providing context. Terrorist acts have a narrow definition in Canadian law. This guy could be a spree killer motivated by racism but unless that killing is for premeditated ideological, religious or political reasons to coerce a specific result or change of policy from the population / Government it doesn't fall under the definition.
No manifesto or claim of reasoning or connections found to groups that claim responsibility - no terrorist designation.
This is true, though the declaration being avoided is a wider set than just terrorism.
When I say skew I am not implying intent to mislead, just that paranoid interpretations by readers are kind of inevitable in such a situation.
Yes, but you're mixing several points here, primarily environmental and direct harm. Car-centric city design is harmful, but a highway doesn't up and kill people one day in the same way that a driver hitting someone with their car does.
The other thing you're mixing into this one comment is the attribution of harm, the "car plows into crowd" thing. Yes, the car didn't do it, a driver drove their car into the crowd. Having the reporting properly attribute the action is a separate issue from the actions themselves.
Cars are absolutely not the problem here. Yes cars have issues, but using this as an anti-car platform is disgusting and shameful.
This is a growing problem with mental illness, racism, and the right wing. Focus on the problem.
Oh yeah, the old "this isn't a ~~gun~~ car issue; this is a mental health issue". "You're disgusting for trying to make this ~~mass-shooting~~ mass-ramming about ~~guns~~ cars; this isn't the time(TM)." It's such a shame that the US is the only place in the world with a mental health crisis and that's why first-world gun deaths almost exclusively happen in the US, not in Canada where firearms are heavily reg– checks title Oh wait. It seems like "This isn't an X issue, it's a mental health one" curiously always seems to come back to "I want you to solve this nebulous, prolific, and stochastic issue in lieu of addressing the most immediate, concrete problem by regulating X because I really like my privileged position of being able to use X however and wherever I want and fuck anybody who suffers for or questions that privilege."
Why can't it be both? Car deaths have concrete, meaningful steps we could immediately take (pedestrianizing roads, adding bollards to pedestrian streets, reducing car dependency so fewer people own and drive cars, etc., and that's just for incidents where people intentionally use cars to murder people), but it seems like you happen to prefer ignoring the reality that designing cities around cars is horribly dangerous and dysfunctional. "Cars have issues"? Yeah, try reading the title to see one of them.
It's so obvious this attack was trivial to a point where it's not even settled that it was intentional. You think this man could've killed ~~nine~~ eleven people and injured twenty more with his fists? Seriously?? [Editor's note: they seriously compare it to being armed with fists in a now-removed comment.] Even a knife attack is considerably more difficult, and it has at least some minimum barrier that you need to be in some kind of physical condition to perpetrate one, that there's a minimal chance of escaping the scene, that there's more chance of stopping it early, and that a car attack can be done much more impulsively. Plus there's the matter that regulating cars is massively easier than regulating knives. A goddamn infirm 90-year-old has the capacity to perpetrate this attack. And what would've prevented it completely? A few slabs of concrete or steel that any decent pedestrian street would have. Make psychological and psychiatric care free under Canada's Medicare? Absolutely, do it. Do it right now; why haven't we already? Do I think that'd be as effective at preventing this attack as literally just some slabs on the street? No.
You know there is a forest behind these trees right?
And I never said guns weren’t a problem, that’s you talking for me because you have no respect for anyone else’s opinion if it might challenge yours.
If you took the time to do the root cause analysis, you would have a different opinion of the problem. So, you can choose to keep your belief, or educate yourself. I’m guessing you go with the one that delivers the most dopamine.
I hope you're smart enough to understand what an "analogy" is? If not, here you go. "Analogy is a comparison or correspondence between two things (or two groups of things) because of a third element that they are considered to share." Hope that helps, champ. 🥰
posting definitions at someone who appears more educated than yourself is straight middleschool behavior from you.
They clearly weren't educated enough to understand the basic rhetorical device of analogy – that I was comparing excuses for mass-shootings to excuses for car rammings as functionally the same – so I feel pretty secure in posting definitions.
Middle-school behavior for middle-school concepts, I guess?
Edit: sorry, I forgot that they also think this person could've killed ~~nine~~ eleven people and injured twenty with their bare fists, so maybe middle-school behavior was too sophisticated.
the “security you feel” is textbook Dunning-Kruger Syndrome
Root cause analysis. Do it or stay dumb. Adios.
So you do or do not understand that when I was talking about guns, I was drawing a direct comparison between your misdirection away from the lack of regulation to mental health and right-wingers' misdirection away from the lack of regulation to mental health? Not actually assuming what your stance on gun regulation is? That is our common understanding now, right? You can amend your comment to acknowledge that you misunderstood this basic rhetorical device? Or acknowledge it in some form? You're not going to "never play defense" me here, right?
You hate cars more than you hate people dying. That’s probably why you don’t like to dive too deep into mental health.
So "never play defense" then? On the concept of an analogy and the "fists" thing, right? Everyone is Kiryu Kazuma going around, killing ~~nine~~ eleven and injuring twenty with their fists?
Can you acknowledge that you were wrong about the analogy? And can you acknowledge that comparing a fist attack to an attack perpetrated by a car driver is asinine?
It’s possible to tell when you have won when the opponent starts attacking things like grammar and language as a last ditch effort to get the dopamine they need for they day.
I hope you have the day you voted for 🥰 goodbye.
Cars are made for transport, guns are made for killing. They are not the same.
I have no clue how your comment here got 5 downvotes.
This place is just like reddit/twitter—iIllogical and vitriolic.
Right here, right now, they can be compared to guns assuming this was an attack. Were it not for car-centric infrastructure, a car couldn't even have reached this crowded festival. There would've been trivial safety measures like bollards in place, but because we as a society collectively value vroom vroom over human lives, they weren't in place. With ~~nine~~ eleven killed and twenty injured, it was comparable in devastation to a mass-shooting. Just like when the US values pew pew over human lives, there are mass-shootings.
But you're right: they aren't the same.
By the way, "guns are made for killing" can just as easily be warped into "guns are made for self-protection", and suddenly you can compare if their utility outweighs their ease of access and rampant deregulation – just like you can with cars.
Now give me the positive statistics. Cars save lives as well. Think of all the emergency vehicles that help people every day. I'm pretty sure guns are way less helpful.
Okay, let's see here. If we put aside the climate change killing untold trillions of animals on top of the mass-extinction event, the untold number of humans that have died and will die from climate change, the number of people displaced by climate change, the over a million people killed annually, the few million injured annually (many permanently and debilitatingly), the billions of dollars in annual property damage, the regions destabilized and the hundreds of thousands killed and displaced over oil wars, the lung issues from air pollution and the brain damage from when it was leaded, the neighborhoods destroyed to make way for roads, the poverty in the inner city caused in large part by unsustainable suburban sprawl, the people bankrupted by the need to own a car, the opportunity cost from the money wasted on overpriced car infrastructure, the amount of hours wasted driving because of said sprawl, the contribution to the obesity epidemic by making people more sedentary, the disenfranchisement of the elderly, young, and disabled who can't drive or would have a much easier time on public transit, that many of those emergency vehicles are responding to car crashes, that lower traffic and less sprawl via public transit and micromobility lowers response times for emergency vehicles (thus saving more lives), and if we totally disregard that emergency vehicles are more than capable of existing in a city built around public transit and micromobility (and much more that I'm forgetting)...
A rounding error in comparison. That your answer was "emergency vehicles" shows that you don't understand the scope and scale of how badly car-centric infrastructure damages everything it touches. It isn't on the same order of magnitude; it isn't even within a few orders of magnitude. If anything, emergency vehicles have been hampered by the rampant proliferation and deregulation of cars, because it makes it harder for them to get to their destination quickly and safely.
Hell, half of the time I can't move as quickly as I would like to through the city with my bicycle it is due to cars being in the way of moving quickly and efficiently. And that is a lot smaller than an ambulance.
The way too many people drive I'm not so sure cars weren't made for killing
Haha, yeah, but you get the point.
Yeah you're not wrong
It’s the other way around in this situation. This isn’t a car accident. The fact is this person attacked a group of people. The weapon is whatever they could get their hands on. It’s Canada so obviously a gun isn’t the go-to weapon of choice like it is in the States.
I like how they've so far completely failed to defend or even address what they said about "fists" because they know it's a heap of bullshit. They apparently want us to think that the everyman on the street is Kiryu Kazuma who can roll up to a crowded festival and kill ~~nine~~ eleven people with their bare fists then injure ~~like ten~~ twenty more before being restrained and brought into custody.
So you’ve made my argument for me by showing that the tool used in an assault is not relevant, and by focusing on the tool you solve nothing.
... What? I'm taking the piss out of your argument that the tool isn't relevant. You tried to bring "fists" into this as a comparison. Unless you're willing to say that I could go out right now into a crowd of people and kill eleven and wound twenty with my bare hands like I'm the Internet badass from the Navy SEALs copypasta, then you're absolutely full of it and are just running with the recently popularized bad-faith argumentation strategy of "never play defense".
Do you or do you not believe that it is possible for me to go out into a crowd of people of some description unarmed, then kill eleven people and wound twenty with – your words, not mine – "my fists". Are you actually that deluded, or were you mistaken in comparing a car attack to a fist attack?
My opinion of fists is totally irrelevant as it is used to represent a tool of any kind. Thank you for so clearly pointing out that the tool doesn’t matter at all.
I will note, that if the design of the tool is to be used solely as a weapon (such as a gun) then it does matter, but only emphasizes the issue of mental health.
To answer your direct question, even though we have established the tool is irrelevant… I do not have any way to predict your performance in an unarmed fight. If I had to make an uneducated guess: I imagine you lack the physical ability to do much more than type as you are.
The tool is very relevant when it enables greater amounts of violence.
Killing nine people with your fists is extremely hard and you'd probably die trying. A car, gun, or bomb makes it much easier.
We should remove devices whose sole purpose is to be used as a weapon. But otherwise anything could be used as a weapon, regardless of its original purpose.
However, I do feel that combustion vehicles should be eliminated entirely as they are no longer needed and are clearly damaging the planet.
But not anything could be used as a mass murder weapon. Killing nine people with a kitchen knife would also be quite hard (technically possible if the attacker gets lucky, but still more likely to result in the attacker dying)
The fact that cars are all potential mass murder weapons isn't my primary reason for wanting to ban cars, but it's totally a reason.
Well, more than 9 people die in knife attacks all the time.
You just don’t like cars and you want to use this as a way to eliminate them. It has nothing to do with people dying.
If you cared about people you would find the root cause. But you don’t, because you’re angry and you want to punish everyone around you for not giving you more support.
Over a million people around the world die because of cars every year. The most recent number I found for Canada was 1,998 people.
Let's compare that to knives. The most recent number I found for Canada was 138 people stabbed to death. Globally, 97k. Orders of magnitude in difference.
Most vehicle deaths are accidents, but you can't ignore the fact that cars kill far more people than knives.
I don't like cars, and one of the reasons is because they're extremely deadly and driving is basically the most dangerous thing we do on a regular basis.
I agree cars are dangerous.
However, this isn’t about car accidents. This is about a person who is mentally ill and would have found a way to hurt people regardless.
There is a right time and place to argue the existence of cars, but this is neither.
This is exactly like when gun lovers try to say "this isn't the time to discuss gun laws" and "they would have found a way to hurt people regardless". Zero difference.
But actually this is exactly when we should argue about the existence of cars: someone just performed a live demonstration of how dangerous they are in the hands of someone who wants to kill people. Without a car, mass killing would be much much harder and it would also be possible for people to defend themselves or escape the danger. Cars also enable impulse killings in a way knives don't, because carrying a knife has to be premeditated whereas with a car the murder weapon is always readily available.