this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
1125 points (98.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2459 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Almost 90 bombs were dropped in one region in just 24 hours.

Russia unleashed an unprecedented bombardment in southern Ukraine overnight in what local officials described as a “massive attack” in the conflict which has continued to rage even as the international community’s attention has moved to the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The Ukrainian Internal Affairs Ministry on Monday morning said Russia dropped at least “87 aerial bombs on populated areas of the Kherson region - the largest number for all time.” At least eight people were also injured in other Russian strikes carried out in the Odessa region further to the west on Sunday night.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Voting for any person means you approve of their actions and you are complicit and responsible for them.

I don't think it means that necessarily. It's just as valid to vote strategically against an even worse party if they have a chance of winning. It's not morally contentious to vote for the lesser of two evils.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils there will never an incentive for a good one to show up because you won't vote for them anyways.

You're too busy voting for Genocide Joe.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well I Iive in Canada but point taken. I'm still not sure I agree that it's on the voter to let the worse party win just to support a burgeoning better one. I'd say the responsibility is on that better party to secure their base and show a reasonable chance to win before asking voters to risk the worse party winning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I can agree that concessions need to be made but any party that supports literal should never ever receive a vote.

In that case it's time to pull out the classic

https://media.tenor.com/2-5XPoT_7esAAAAC/are-we-the-baddies-bad.gif

The moral option is then a third party that doesn't support genocide to show that any party supporting it will never win your vote.