Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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
You want to judge something you don't know. That's never a good idea.
I don't judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.
Why are you regularly referring to this precise book?
So that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
Do you agree with the book?
In which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint?
With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
How would you know if you haven't read it?
That depends on what you are asking.
It doesn't. You not being able to know if the book does a reasonable analysis is only due to you not knowing the book.
e: typo
You are clever, and I try to be clever, too. I only wrote that I think that the book does a reasonable analysis. I am able to know that.
If you still want to discuss the message of the book, which one do you have in mind?
How? You don't know the book.
By being nitpicky about the way I phrased my answer.
You are right though, I cannot speak about the book. That's why I only talk about things that are written in the Wikipedia page.
Exactly. You talk about something just based on a snippet of information read on Wikipedia.
I hope you now see that this is an incredibly weak basis to build strong arguments on. As you also shied away from actually stating anything precise you seem noteworthy from this book, this weak basis seems apparent to you too.
Have a good day.
Yet you say it is "already annoying" to know the "summary" of the book.
Now we have two possibilities:
If you think 1 is true, you also judge the book, without having read it. If 2 is true, the element on which you base your emotions is flawed and hence you should reconsider it.
Then what?
It all boils down to whether you think your summary accurately represents the book. Do you?
Brudi ich bin mir ziemlich sicher dass du mit ner KI diskutierst die darauf trainiert wurde nervtötend zu sein.
It would if I had to make a book report in school. Instead I am using the Wikipedia page as the primary source.