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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
No, actually. Might does not make right. It is also not always the most efficient way to get what you want.
I'm not saying that force is never necessary in a chaotic world. Violence is often necessary and justified to protect ourselves and others. But violence is not "right" by virtue of being to most forceful, ruthless or effective. What's right lives on a completely different axis from what can be taken.
The rules-based world order was imperfect, it was often hypocritical, but it wasn't a straight-up lie. It reigned in a lot of chaos, and it gave us the best years of human civilization. Had the project succeeded, it could have removed weapons of mass destruction and shrunk armies around the world, eradicated hunger and diseases, and no doubt it could have fixed the climate crisis too. It did accomplish many of the things it set out to do. But it was sidelined, betrayed, by complacency and a belief that the dominoes would fall into place without any need for further effort or sacrifice.
I still believe. Fuck the UN. We need to build a new UN with blackjack and hookers, get some real environmental protections on the ground, round up capital, and progressively get rid of weapons. It can still be done.
Please don't mistake my post for claiming that "might is right" is right. I agree it's not the most efficient path, and in Mark Carney's speech he acknowledges that this worldview will have a tremendous cost due to the risk-mitigation actions each country will have to take in response. However, he also seems optimistic when describing how middle powers can band together for common causes, while also working to advance their own individual interests. "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu." Cooperation with each other is encouraged, not blind subjugation to the world's superpowers.
I believe this acceptance, and the risk mitigation that needs to be taken in response, is necessary. Of course it would be better for everyone to follow a common rule of law and submit to a rule-based world order; however, it's ignorant to believe that matches our reality. If every country's sovereignty was respected, Ukraine would never have been invaded, Venezuela wouldn't have been attacked, and genocide wouldn't be occurring in Palestine.
This week the UN Relief and Works Agency headquarters was bulldozed by Israel in complete defiance of international law. In response, the UN strongly condemned this in a tweet. The current international institutions are toothless or worse. We have a new "board of peace" being formed with two founding members being wanted on international war crime charges. But if only the experiment had worked, we could have solved climate change and eradicated world hunger.
This is the same complacent dialogue I railed against in my first post. Yet in the end of your comment you still seem to recognize that change is needed. Let's not reminisce on the status-quo fondly. It's time to create something new. I hope to see strong independent nations who can band together in a federation when needed. And no, I don't think disarmament would be in our common interest. I look to Libya and Gaddafi's fate when considering what would happen after giving up nuclear ambitions. And I doubt Ukraine would have been invaded if they still had their nuclear weapons.
Carney's speech was epic. He stuttered a bit, but the way it was written at the moment that it was delivered, I believe, will go down in history. I don't know much about him as a politician overall, but the sentiment he expressed is one that is shared throughout Europe and surely much of the industrialized world.
If we're going to establish a truly rules-based world order, we need to back up our words with actions, and force if necessary. We do hold imperialist and expansionist actors accountable, with force if necessary.
The issue of weapons of mass destruction is huge and hardly something we will solve here. But briefly: nobody should have weapons of mass destruction. We should have a situation where a supranational body ensures that weapons of mass destruction do not exist, similar to the IAEA but one that is compulsory. Yes it sucks that Ukraine and Libya were invaded, and I agree that it likely wouldn't have happened if it could have devolved into the entire planet being destroyed. But the stakes of weapons of mass destruction is way to high. This is not how we ensure peace, an inch from the abyss, terrified to move lest we all slip and fall. We need something more robust and less based on the ensured destruction of the planet.