Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
-
Post title should be the article headline.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
-
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
-
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
view the rest of the comments
I'm having a conversation on a forum about the case. I'm not making any legal decisions that affect this case arguing with people online who want to strip women of their rights because Lyndsey Clancy killed her kids.
I'm not the only one who believes this juror had ulterior motives for the way he voted and that he ignored the law telling him that if he had reasonable doubt he shouldn't vote guilty.
And I don't disagree with any of that, and unless she is unfortunate enough to have two people like that slip through her lawyer's vetting process, it will have no long-term repercussions for her or society in general. On the other hand, having penalties for the decisions jurors make could be very far-reaching, quite possibly as far-reaching as stripping women of their rights.
I've never posited that jurors should have penalties for the decisions they make just because I disagree with a juror's decision. To be clear.
Anyone working to strip women of their rights based on this one case is doing so nefariously. This isn't a novel case, this isn't the first postpartum psychosis incident.
It's not Lindsey Clancy's fault if bad actors use her case to attack all women.
Well, then I guess we agree that at the very least this guy whose name I can't be bothered to remember or even look up is probably a shitty person and should be treated with disgust by everyone who meets him (probably the best reason to learn his name), and that if it didn't happen in this case another would have come along that the people trying to remove rights could use as a foil to their means.
That suggests to me that focusing on this loser, or the choice he made that was entirely in his right, will be nothing more than a red herring and it would be better to focus on this case being used as an excuse to remove women's rights.
Yep, that's why I've posted about that very thing myself.
I also think that it is worthy to publicly push back on some of these sexist opinions that are rising from people conflating Lindsey Clancy with all women as if we are a monolith.
Absolutely fair. Hell, even Lemmy users are a pretty small, self-selected bunch and we aren't a monolith.
Hey thanks for having a back and forth with me that didn't devolve into name calling or personal digs. That was nice :)
Well, I'm a real, multi-faceted person, and I have my bad days, but I try to call out behavior and statements and avoid insults. Sometimes it's easier, and this was certainly one of them. Maybe we can argue/discuss again in the future. :D
I'd like that :)
What rights are at stake here? Women’s right to kill their toddlers?