Europe
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
There's a difference between opinions and facts.
When the topic is ideas then ideas are facts.
Which topic?
The structure of the war.
And you think this book contains facts about 'the structure of the war'?
The book contains facts about how people think about the war.
And which of these facts do you want to point out by citing the book?
Not one in particular but the overall approach.
Namely?
That it's very functional.
Earlier in this thread, you said "itβs already annoying to know the summary."
What annoys you in this "very functional" book you haven't read?
The discrepancy between how the book and the media analyses the situation.
What exactly?
Read the page and you will know.
Since it is you that keeps referring to this book on here, it is you who should be able to point to something precise that you find noteworthy.
How come you're not able to do that?
You haven't asked for something noteworthy.
That doesn't have to be Russia.
I don't think it will be Russia. What's your point? Do you know the sentence that comes before this?
Yes. It's strange even if the sentence before would be the goal. What does it say about the EU?
It's not strange. It's the point of the argument made by the author in that book - which you would know if you wouldn't just jump to conclusions by reading a few selected sentences from it that align with your opinion, but actually took the time and effort to understand the whole argument.
All you show here is that you didn't understand what this book is about, which isn't surprising as you only know the title and a few selected extracts that can be framed in a provoking manner. I tried to point out that your view on this book has been manipulated but you don't seem to have a problem with that.
With the energy poured into this to-and-fro here for days, you could also have been reading the book you like to show here. It would enable you to provide well-founded arguments for your opinions and hence would have been far more beneficial to the quality of the debate. Maybe that's something you'd like to aspire to.
So you have read the book? Then please explain how the sentence can be interpreted differently. That sentence sets a limit to the growth of the EU.
I said what I have to say and I guess you understood it. No need for a stretched out discussion into no-where. When you feel the urge to refer to this book again in the future, think about this conversation - I will.
So you haven't read the book but you make claims about the context. That's bold, in the context of your recent comments.
I hope you will remember the quote about the EU when you see the next reference. Maybe one day you will understand what you support.