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
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/two-disqualified-failing-meet-eligibility-criteria-world-champs-2023-03-26/
Imane Khelif was disqualified for not meeting gender criteria from world championship.
Edit to all: I am not against LGBT+ or anything. I just post news, take what you want.
By already disqualified IBA which was disqualified for corruption and pro Russia slant.
They claim they have evidence, but never provide it, they disqualified her after she beat a Russian boxer. Why didn't they disqualify her earlier fight after she won against the Nigerian (IIRC) boxer.
Not to mention 9 fights she lost to other women.
Publishing the evidence would violate the athlete's privacy.
AFAIK the athlete never got any results either.
What evidence do you want to see? A full report on her hormone levels? A photo of her genitals?
Why did the IOC, which has been organising boxing at the Olympics since 2019, come to the opposite conclusion of the IBA when considering Khelif's participation?
She was suspended for naturally high testosterone levels by the IBA, a governing body that has since itself been suspended and had it’s recognition revoked due to corruption scandals. (Imagine what it takes for the famously corrupt IOC to say, “No, that’s too corrupt.”) No matter how you want to define gender, biological sex, identity, etc., she’s a woman. She’s just a freak athlete and that’s what the Olympics are about. No one would be all up in arms if her hands had a naturally high score on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness. You’d put on your gloves and catch her topaz-hard hands.
While it may be true that IBA is corrupt, let's not use the logical reasoning that IOC's reputation for corruption adds more credibility to their claim. Imagine if Trump called someone corrupt, would his own corrupt reputation leads you to believe his accusation more? I don't believe so.
We should avoid using bad logic to support a correct opinion because it only damages the perception of your other arguments.
It’s not necessarily bad logic. If a regular at a dive bar says someone drinks too much, it’s probably a sign that person drinks way too much. If a college kid tells you an all-you-can-eat buffet sucks, it’s probably not secretly delicious.
Trump (like his diaper) is always full of shit so him calling someone corrupt wouldn’t mean anything. It’s not about logic; it’s about whether the narrator is reliable or not.
Is the IOC a reliable narrator, then? Being a corrupt organization would put them in the category of being unreliable to me.
There are no reliable narrators. This is wisdom, not logic, but you have to find your own truth. Even particles have Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. There’s always uncertainty.
Then what's the point of your previous comment talking about the narrator being reliable or not? Sounds like you just had no actual point and wants to use inconsistent logic whenever you want by calling it wisdom.
All I'm saying is that a corrupt individual is not a reliable narrator, therefore it's illogical to use their corruptness as proof of their reliability at calling out corruption. Your counter examples are not relevant because their qualities does not directly make their statements unreliable.
And again, I'm not calling out the truthness in this matter, since I also believe the IBA is corrupt, but I'm calling out your use of bad logic to support that position. I'm sure if you actually read my comments properly you'd understood that I never questioned the truth in your statement about IBA, only one of the logical reasoning you used.
?
They think you are a ChatGPT bot
And, to remind everyone, accusing users of that is against community rules.