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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
Congrats. You have won the Irony Detector 2025 Award which a lot better than the "100% Humour-Free Certificate
WOW Finally! An award always wanted one of these!
See how I make it obvious that im being sarcastic? Coulda done that the first time.
My deepest respect for your pointing out the funny within the irony until really wach and everyone can laugh about it. Nothing better than a well explained joke, However the explaining of a single joke when just performed exhaustingly and tediously enough by pedantic characters might become itself a new joke, a form of "metahumour".
You know guys, the issue here really is that while you can imagine a tone while reading, unless there's actually an objective indicator as to what it's supposed to be, there's going to be mismatches.
I don't think we give enough credence to the magic of language. We're looking at essentially a binary table of black and white, the white forming letters, those letters then forming words and those words eliciting specific thoughts. The fact that the tone isn't conveyed properly is a very minor thing. But we can't really imagine completely toneless speech, so sometimes neutral seems aggressive and sometimes sarcastic seems obtuse.
Which I grant I honestly took your comment as well for the first 3 seconds. You never know online. You just. Can't know. No matter how seemingly obvious it seems to be from context. Poe's law and all that
Well said, however there are universally accepted indicators within litterature that are used to convey such tone. Not to mention they completely lacked any connotative words that would have helped the average person decipher that instantly. My original message "youre being cheeky right?" was litterally questioning "what side are you on?" because without tone or connotation they might actually hold these beliefs. I think we can agree that they could have easily wrote the original message using these litterary devices to convey the message and connotation perfectly
"It used to be pulp literature, cinema, comics, television, Rock'n'Roll and VHS that spoiled our young. Now it's definitely video games."
Heck, I sure was as ambiguous as the whole discussion is and always was. Claims of cinema, even theater (even drama in ancient Greece), VHS etc, were a danger to to the general public and specifically to the youth were absolutely real. They even had some point. It's just the fact that the same blame game has been played again and again with every new medium that emerged that has some intrinsic irony. Obviously communication channels can be used by miscreants to spread ugly stuff. Who might have thought? And still people are acting as if thit was new or unexpected. I didn't even have to point thar out, just the sheer mentioning of these undoubted historic facts did the job. Make your own conclusions from that, everyone, but don't be surprised or upset when the next big thing will be used to spoil the youth just again. Because it will happen. It never stopped happening.
I think history kinda shows us they did not in fact have any sort of a point besides being irate about new technology.
The point is text doesn't convey tone, or even necessarily have any, but texts is read as speech, and speech has a tone. A lot of the times our internal translators just pick the wrong one.
You don't realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one's side, because there's no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there's practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don't.
I realise your intention perfectly.
This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I'm taking.
Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn't.
You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won't be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I'm using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.
I haven't. Perhaps you've imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that's what we are discussing.
Made me laugh, thank you.
Okay pops I can match this energy hold on. Ehem.
Doth thou cranium contain the capacity for sarcasm? If so, you certainly did not display such characteristics in your original message. For it seems you lack the basic litterary skills to portray such complexities in your work. I suggest doing away with your frail attempts at humor aswell, seeing as only you would find these morsels humorous. Finally on your ramblings of metahumor, you attempt to imply that I would become the posterier to your musings of comedy. However you fail to understand one thing, My original message too was a but a aggitator of sorts designed to invoke a reaction, quickly youve responded with an attempt to disparage me. My tactics were dastardly but you proved yourself the dastard In this exchange.