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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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
Biden when Americans need help:
Biden when far right ethnostate wants to do another genocide in the Middel East:
Motherfucker is 80 years old and has no idea what he's doing. We deserve better than our only two options
Oh, is that what this is about? We're attacking the Houthis in defense of Israel?
Don't be fucking daft, or disingenuous, which is worse because it displays complete moral cowardice.
We're attacking the Houthis because they're indiscriminately attacking civilian ships in one of the most valuable shipping lanes in the fucking world.
Countries are allowed to decide what goes through their territorial waters.
You conveniently dismiss that the ships are in international waters. Besides, sinking them is an unwarranted escalation when it comes to civilian ships.
They didn't actually sink any ships.
Yeah, not for a lack of trying.
Luckily, the Houthis are not the internationally recognized government of Yemen, so this isn't relevant.
Nope. Not as a blanket statement. There are things they can regulate but we regularly conduct "freedom of navigation" patrols through the waters of certain countries just to remind them they aren't allowed to ban cargo ships sailing at a certain distance from the coastline.
So it's about money, as it always is. Going to war is always about money... I'm so tired of the U.S. being at war. We've been at war all but maybe 12 years of the U.S.'s existence. Don't believe me? It's surprising but true.
Unless your ideal is an autarkic Festung Amerika, shipping lanes kind of have to be able to operate without the civilian sailors who go through worrying about getting fucking killed.
Globalization isn't a requirement. In fact, it's completely destroying our planet and its habitability. But yeah, let's worry about the shipping lanes.
Yeah, alright, you have fun with the idea that people exchanging goods without murdering each other is what's destroying the planet. Terribly evil, globalization. Or that the collapse of shipping lanes wouldn't result in incredible human suffering.
It's called CO2 emissions, I'm sure you're aware of it. The suffering climate change is going to cause in the coming decades will dwarf anything we've ever seen, unless we see a sharp decrease in emissions to zero very very soon, ideally 20 years ago. But, the next best time to do it is right now.
Nothing you said is remotely relevant.
The core issue of CO2 emissions isn't "People now communicate, travel to, and trade with each other across the globe" but "Massive use of fossil fuels where they are not necessary due to corporate lobbying"
Cargo ships and planes combined emit ~5% of our CO2 output. The major offenders are elsewhere.
I'm not going to argue about this. We need to reduce our emissions to zero, that is not zero.
We’ll never reduce to zero, stop engaging in fantasy delusions. What can do is make realistic effort to curb the largest offenders, which ocean shipping isn’t a part of. If you think we’re going to go back to the age of sail and multi-year journeys for items to reach destinations then you’re high
It's not a fantasy, it's literally the only thing that will save us. Scientists have been very very clear zero emissions is the only thing that will stop climate change. I live with one for God sakes. Don't call me delusional. It's the only rational thing to do, anything else is fucking crazy bcz it's the difference between livable conditions here, and not. But don't trust me, we'll all see the consequences of our dumbest arguments in about a decade.
That is not a rational goal by any stretch of the imagination.
It's actually the only thing that's going to save us. It's not only rational, it's the only logical conclusion one can come to from the overwhelming data on climate change. If you think burning fossil fuels is more important than having a habitable planet, then you're not thinking clearly.
A planet without energy use cannot possibly be habitable.
Actually we survived without energy use for hundreds of thousands of years before electricity was invented. So, that's kind of a ridiculous statement to even make.
No, we didn't. Humans discovered fire a hell of a long time ago.
And unless you're willing to exterminate thousands for every one that lives, "go back to fire" isn't theoretically possible either.
You know burning a fire isn't the same as driving cars, planes, busses, heating houses with natural gas, oil, coal, etc right? You're just being obtuse now, on purpose, and I don't know why..
For your batshit stated goal of "zero emissions no matter what", they absolutely are the same thing. A fire is emissions.
But again. Even theoretically going back to fire would only be possible if you exterminated the overwhelming majority of humanity.
Zero emissions can be achieved with renewable energy sources. There are lots of them. Nothing bat shit crazy about that. You've bought in to some serious propaganda unfortunately. We have the technology at this very moment to switch over fully renewable sources. But we haven't because of money.
It's sad that this is considered a controversial point of view at all. Its been so highly politicized, for what, money, over the billions of lives we are going to lose in the coming decades?
That's the real insanity here, not what I advocate for.
There are emissions from the manufacturing process. There will be emissions from recycling, there will be emissions period. Zero emissions is not realistic.
Right, we should just accept the planet will become uninhabitable. That's your message right now. And that's the real insanity.
You say zero emissions is the goal, which great.... buuuut that doesn't happen in this system we call planet earth.
Hell, your corpse will off gas after you're dead, and if you get eaten before you rot, the animals that eat you will still off gas when you have been turned to shit, which gives off methane.
You say renewables are the path to NO emissions, but knowing how things are made, especially things that make modern life cushy has a CO2 emission amount amongst others, every bite you eat will have emissions.
The ONLY way to get zero emissions is to return to a pre-stone age level of tech.
Net zero is what you need to accept as the goal unless you have replictor tech (you know the device on star trek).
Really, you say that people are insane for not going to zero emissions, yet you keep racking up your contributions typing to people who have a better handle on the topic than you (seriously others in this thread have made more logical arguments than you and with better backing than I).
No one is saying to let the planet go to hell, but we understand the limitations.
So, you exhale CO2 when you breath.
Draw whatever conclusions from that that you like.
Yeah, and trees also exhale oxygen. What's your point?
What, literally zero and not net zero? That's anprim bullshit.
Get off the internet then.
You’re not going to argue because you literally can’t, your back is against the wall and the only thing you have left to cling to is “buh not zero!”
Go change the world somewhere else.
If you are concerned about CO2, why is allowing a bunch of shitheels to close down THE SHORTEST route for shipping in the area a step forward?
They don't have to go through that area.
Do explain how to get goods to and from that area without going through it. Or should that whole part of the world be cut off from global trade?
Obviously they should just triple their carbon emissions by going around Africa instead. This saves the environment!
They can go through it if they just stop supporting genocide seems pretty easy 🤷♂️
How are the merchant ships going through the Red Sea supporting genocide? Please explain.
Could you explain that one for me? Because it really seems like you’re just saying shit here. 🤷♂️
Ansar Allah, the group constituting Yemen’s de facto government, has stated it’s their legal obligation under international law to do everything in their power to prevent the genocide of Palestinians. As such, they are attempting to enforce a naval blockade of the Red Sea to any ships associated with Israel until the genocide ends.
Sure, they said they're only going to attack ships that are owned by, going to, or doing trade with Israel. There's ships going through right now.
I guess you don't know this, but there are, in fact, different limitations in what the President can do.
When it comes to military action, Congress gave the President essentially blanket authority to do anything that can be even remotely connected to "fighting terrorism", so this is not in any way a "Fuck Congress" moment. If Congress wants to withdraw that authority and actually do its job again, it can do that at literally any time.
Are you familiar with the term "Commander in Chief"?
Did you miss when Biden was (rightly) criticizing trump for going around Congress for strikes like this and Biden said no president should ever do that....
And now he's doing it?
His entire campaign is "I'm not trump", but he acts more like him everyday. And I don't expect him to turn it around after he wins the last election of his 60 year political career.
That's one hell of a false equivalent. Trump killed a senior government official of a regional powerhouse without provocation. Biden is responding to provocations against US and Allied shipping.
But you go on with your both sides bullshit.
I agree with you but that is also the legal framework we gave him to work with.