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.
-
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
The article won't load for me, but I'm sensing ambiguity, judging by the few comments.
I'm guessing she's suggesting that the team would actually suck if it were all-white.
Were bigots outraged here?
She said something that could be taken the opposite of what she meant, so she deleted it and apologized...
I have zero idea why people in this thread are upset about that.
Too many people these days think if you apologize it means the other person "wins" I guess. They're not interested in talking about stuff, just having slap fights. So someone acting like an adult just breaks their brains. They can't imagine someone handling it like a reasonable person.
Heard.
Yeah, the situation makes sense.
It's just the comments don't seem to have anything to do with the situation.
I'm guessing that's what she meant, but I think no matter which way she meant it (either that the team would be worse all-white or better all-white), it's not a good comment to make either way as I don't see how skin color relates to skill.
She’s praising the team for recruiting based on skill, not color. A 1/5 of Germans believe the team isn’t white enough.
The players on the team are there because they're the best available.
If you changed that based on race, then it's racist.
She meant that if the team picked the best white people, the team wouldn't be as good.
Just like if the team picked no white people, it wouldn't be the best.
I legitimately don't get why people think it's racist that she pointed out the team won while being mixed race, and might not have won if they tried to have a racially homogeneous team over just the best available players.
Like, can you explain your logic for saying her pointing out making race more important than skill would lead to a worse team is somehow racist?
I genuinely want to understand how you got to that conclusion, and no one else wants to explain how they did either.
Where did I say that it's racist? I said it's not a good comment to make, purely from a logical standpoint.
Why do I think it's not a good comment to make? Because I don't think there should be any relation made to skin color at all in this case. Some of the best soccer players in the world/country just happen to have a certain skin color.
She makes it seem like an all-white team would definitely be worse (or better) compared to the current lineup, even if there were 11 white players objectively better at soccer than all other players that could've made up the team.
She could've said "the team is as good as it is because we didn't discriminate between skin colors when picking the best players". That would've brought her intended message across.
Oh ok.
So you think she said this in a vacuum, because you didn't hear what the racists had been saying?
That would make sense. With zero context, it's hard to understand.
Yes, she's aware it didn't come across well...
That's why she deleted it and clarified....
Like, you know she's a native German speaking, and sometimes when someone is speaking a second language things come across not as clear?
Apparently she tweeted it, didn't she? So even if she tweeted it as a response to an ongoing discussion on X, this tweet would've been read by many as-is, and the tweet itself wouldn't have provided a lot of context.
With that being said, I still don't think her original statement logically made a lot of sense.
That's all I'm saying bud :) just my opinion.
Yep, though it was worded a bit ambigious. But that wasn't really what the backlash was about ...
Guess again.
I'm dizzy.