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
Mocking individuals that you disagree with by reducing all of their arguments down to "both sides same" and setting up a straw man that you easily defeat is not helping anyone.
I don’t really understand this comment. I was replying to the parent comment with a sarcastic/joke take on the “both sides same” people.
Say somebody writes a few paragraphs about the American political system in good faith.
If they draw any parallels between the parties, even a little bit, people come out of the woodwork to mock them and reduce their arguments down to "both sides same". Your comment encapsulates such a situation. You led your comment by saying, "Something something both sides same". I just want to make it clear that I agree that there are significant, stark differences between the two parties, and I understood your sarcasm and probable frustration.
If somebody simply says "both sides same" as their main argument or by itself: you are more than welcome in my book to call it out and push back.
However, I'm trying to suggest that sometimes the "Something something" could be engaged with if it's in good faith, and it'd advance discourse. I'm also trying to suggest that mocking, while valid, can be unfairly applied. It likely isn't the best use of our energy as it can be divisive.
Ok, I think I see why your last comment made no sense to me. I think you’re trying to have a substantive discussion, but… you’re engaging with a joke. I can’t debate you because I don’t have a serious position, I have a joke.
Fair enough, that's that then - I thought I was engaging with a person. As it must be clear now to you, it's the opposite of funny to me - it's frustrating, though not as frustrating as people who regularly spout both sides rhetoric in bad faith.