News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Are you seriously calling what Trump wants here "less severe" than genocide?
Also, quibbling about the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing is fucking sick.
Is forcefully displacing a million people less worse than murdering a million people? Yes. Objectively it is.
It should be obvious that being alive is better than being dead. Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
But genocide is a worse crime, and claiming that voting the genociders over the ethnic cleansers is in any way ethically defensible is absurd.
The only acceptable ethical position is to oppose both and to remove anyone who commits or lets these crimes happen from power. It is a moral imperative to do so, even if other people did not. Anyone who voted for a D or R is ultimately complicit in these crimes too. If the US wasn't morally bankrupt, people would have voted a third party to power. Any form of compromise with genocide is complicity. Fucking WW2 and Holocaust should have taught as much.
I think you need to do some reading if you think this is somehow some sort of low-death event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_of_the_Navajo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march
But sure, keep defending your hero. His hero Andrew Jackson is on your side too.
Where did i defend Trump? Also do you think it is an acceptable way to discuss to make such insincere personal attacks?
Why do you think, there is distinct categories? Why do you think genocide is singled out and is not equated with ethnic cleansing, like for instance "racial segregation and apartheid" are put together as one crime?
I understand that people are very emotional about Trump right now, but it is dangerous to use this as an excuse to defend the indefensible positions and crimes committed by the Biden administration. Gaslighting people into defending and supporting the "lesser evil" has been used successfully by the Democratic party to prevent sustained progressive and ethical politics.
Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this "ethnic cleansing" plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don't accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don't, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don't think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn't fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you've already lost the argument.
I never said there to be good aspects of ethnic cleansing and that should be clear with me calling it a tremendous and horrific crime. But i think it cannot be used to defend genocide, as is the consequence of people claiming that things would be better if the same people remained in power that enabled the genocide.
This you?
Because it has your username attached to it and that is very much saying there's an upside to it.
This is not an upside to ethnic cleansing. It is an upside to the loss of the Democrats in November.
Speaking of which, now would be a great time for the Democrats to attack Trumps Gaza ideas and propose an ethical alternative in accordance with international and humanitarian law. They would have to drop Zionism for that though. As the ADL has defended Musks Hitler salute now would also be a great moment as opposing Zionism is overlapping more and more with opposing Fascism in the US.
That is not what you said. You are changing what you said. This is what you said:
That is you saying that now, because of ethnic cleansing, there is an upside, which is that Democrats might start acknowledging that Zionism is a bad thing.
I am not that blind or that stupid believe it or not. I am able to read.
I am sorry that i did not make it more explicit. The last paragraph refers to the election result, as can be seen also in the last sentence, referring specifically to the election.
People are now saying it was wrong to have made the Democrats lose the election because of Trumps horrible Gaza policies. My argument is that the Democrats aren't better as of yet, but can change now. If they do, they should receive all the support.
Bullshit. You'll find some new cause where the Democrats don't meet your ideal and keep trying to justify the fact that you're enabling fascism.