this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
958 points (98.4% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

45568 readers
62 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 35 points 6 days ago (15 children)

Yea, and the US "vote" is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)
[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Right, and the dumb part now is that nobody in the world expects this to mean shit. Even if it would have been unanimous.

You don't solve world hunger with UN votes. You solve it with technological and economical advancement, by advancing women's rights and with better access to contraceptives.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Gee I wonder what would it take to solve world hunger. Maybe a comprehensive strategic plan that changes minds of decision makers and pressures them through diplomacy and negotiations. Perhaps we could pool resources at the same time to distribute food to the countries most affected by sitemic historical injustice. Someone should manage that complex of a problem. Maybe a neutral governing body that ensures it's well managed and countries pay something up front towards this problem. We should call it the league of countries against hunger, or the coalition of groups of people. I don't know, I'm bad at naming things.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

What makes you think the second number is not a no vote?

In 2021 they published reasoning with they will vote no.

I tried to find a definite source, unfortunately there's no immediate discoverability or reference. Gemini claims “The Standard Format: [Yes] - [No] - [Abstentions]”.

[–] Soulg@ani.social 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They didn't say it wasn't a no vote, they said it wasn't a veto

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Could the US have vetoed the whole process, and no vote would have taken place? Or what does this differentiation mean?

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The person I replied to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

"We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law."

I imagine this is the part they really object to. Real "Fuck you, I've got mine." energy.

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but the US no vote was an automatic veto. They had to remove anything that affected the US and then get all the other UN members to vote on it just to get it to pass. Any P5 nation with veto power can pull the teeth out of a UN resolution.

A "no" vote from a P5 is always a veto. When any of the P5 vote “no” in the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from the wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

No, it's not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.

load more comments (11 replies)