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
Nah, their fortunes would just go to their heirs and you'd still have the same problem with roughly the same number of people. The solution is a system of regulation and taxation that stops incentivizing the pursuit of profit over all else. For example, shareholders should not be able to profit when workers don't. Real estate owners should not be able to engage in cartel-like behavior, collaborating with each other to fix prices.
fascinating people like thiel has actual ivf children.
It's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine a world without capitalism.
We don't give their heirs wealth my dude. It's a revolution. You round up the ruling class and seize their wealth and give it back to the masses that produced it.
I know "that'll never happen". Said every person throughout history just before a revolution.
The wealth redistribution wouldn't solve this particular problem though. If the ecological footprint of a quadrillionaire's wealth is giant spaceships, mega yachts, private jets, data centers and fuel for all of it then it doesn't matter who owns them. The ecological damage will always happen unless that wealth is disposed of or massively downcycled.
I think you are assuming the destructive effects of "wealth" are constant. This is not at all reasonable. 1 million people being able to afford shelter, healthcare, and food is not comparable to the unnecessary destruction we see today brought about by datacenters, private jets, super yachts, wars for the capitalist military industrial complex, etc, etc. Those absurdities do not exist without a concentration of wealth.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying? But, "wealth" does not have the linear relationship with the negative outcomes that you are implying. It is very much the concentration of wealth and power that results in these outcomes. The destructive power wealth has grows exponentially with its concentration in fewer and fewer hands. Simply because as it concentrates the wealthy are able to both cause the destruction AND avoid their consequences at the same time.
also - rich people being scared of the masses and consequences will likely contribute to them well-behaving
they will flee to argentina.
I dunno. Let's try the first plan and see how it goes first.
If we're legally killing them, we can legally confiscate their wealth :-)
Better to say that everyone earning hundred times minimum wage gets eliminated.
The money gets split when it goes to the heirs. Just keep eliminating the rich until the money inheritrd is diluted enough its not significant.
You have to keep creating heirs for that to happen.
Sometimes
The powers don't allow reforms. Removal of powers and a rebuild with safeguards is needed
You say you want a revolution
We-ell you kno-o-ow
We all wanna save the world
You tell me it's the institutions
We-ell you kno-o-ow
We all wanna save the wo-or-r-ld
But when you talk about destuction
Don't you know that you can count me out
It's theseus' ship. is it destruction is kind of a dilemma
I would remind you that this comment chain began with someone suggesting that we'd "only need to lose 50 maybe 100 people". I'm under no illusions as to what was meant by that, and I'm saying that generally speaking, that sort of "solution" doesn't improve things. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", etc.
Force is sometimes necessary, yes, but generally speaking, the people who suggest it as a first resort before ever having gotten personally involved in attempts at other solutions, are the people who should be kept very far away from the real decision making.
No one suggested it first. We've been working for decades through peaceful measures. Hell, we're still doing it now and they are responding with marking our organizations as "Democratic terrorist" with both parties spending every ounce of AIPAC funds to stop us.
Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. We are right on that edge right now. We don't make the choice to use violence. They do.
That's a lot of "we" and "our". Are you a member of a community organization that's working to peacefully improve things? Have you or someone you personally know been prosecuted as a terrorist for peaceful activism?
Before trying Michael Collins IRA stuff, you should at least attempt CS Parnell Land League stuff. Especially since you need a large percentage of the community to have already gotten organized before either form of action can hope to succeed, and that organization is easier to accomplish when you're not asking people to kill people. How many of your neighbors are you on a first name basis with? If you can't organize a community boycott then you could never hope to organize a revolution.
Nothing you said here was in response to the point of my comment. You instead tried to change the conversation about my personal experiences. I guess I have to provide a a resume in order for you to address my direct criticism of your comment.
I'll remind you what is was. I was criticizing the part where you ignored historical class struggle and instead suggested people were advocating for violence as a first step.
Also, the "we" I was using was referring to the working class and specifically those with class consciousness. It's pretty obvious in the context of the conversation.
Do you want respond to my criticism or do I have to provide a resume first?
They were rhetorical questions meant to make you think about alternatives, and the historical examples that have worked.
You talk about historical class struggle as if nothing short of violence has ever worked, when this is demonstrably untrue and is generally only an argument used by those who haven't the patience nor discipline to try anything else. I will reiterate: community organization is the only way forward, not vague suggestions of murder on anonymous forums to strangers. Even if violence were the answer, I wouldn't follow any movement so undisciplined as to suggest it to strangers on an anonymous public forum and think that this made it somehow safe. The world needs more than Che Guevara t-shirts.
No one advocated for violence, the comment you responded to is pointing to the hypocrisy of talking about population reduction when 100 billionares do more damage to the environment and world than millions of people combined.
No one advocated for violence as the solution; or said it should be used as a first step. You still have not addressed my first comments criticism.
You aren't having a conversation or trying to "make me think". You're injecting opinions into comments that were never expressed.