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
Ask Historians !askhistorians@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
wait, you think this assault was justified?
Both can be wrong.
We're talking consequences, not justice. Don't touch random strangers or their kids.
What do we know?
Seemingly, a strange man violated a child's personal space without her consent. What message does it send the child? "You are property for others to touch when they please?" Yes, that probably deserves retribution. People should know that this behavior is unacceptable. I wonder what words were exchanged.
An old man patted a child's head. I don't think the head pat is a message that the child is his property. What type of "retribution" do you think is deserved here? It's crazy that you would even use that word. Retribution is defined as punishment inflicted as vengeance.
Of course it's weird to touch people's heads but your take on this is crazy.
What does the child think?
Hard to say. It's partly why I wonder what they said to each other.
It's crazy that you're trying to normalize child abuse.
Correct. Do you know why? Because the damage was already done. He did not ask before touching, he touched someone else's child. No one can undo that. We could ask him politely not to do it again, but would that deter him and others like him? No. Show them what happens when they choose to casually violate the boundaries of others.
Why are you more interested in defending the aggressor than the victims?
Child abuse 😂
I really have to know what you think being patted on the head means because you're speaking as if the child was punched in the face.
No, I'm speaking as if she was touched without her consent. Because she was. We shouldn't normalize that.
Children should know that they have autonomy. Children should be taught the importance of consent so they can protect themselves. Adults should know better than to touch others without consent.
No, much of the language and ideas you expressed are more in line with if some great violence or trauma was inflicted. It does not line up with an unwanted head pat.
I am still not convinced you know what a pat on the head is compared to a punch in the face.
Their differences are irrelevant to the question of "was it done intentionally to a stranger without their consent?" If the answer is yes then it wasn't okay, whether it was a pat on the head, a punch in the face, or a grab by the pussy.
That's not the question at hand. The question at hand is why they're flattening the two things in order to describe the act as "child abuse", and generally overreact to the exact nature of the action. The fact of the touch being non-consensual is not in question but the description of it as violence, traumatic, and abuse is.
Jumping to extremes is not rational behaviour.
That's not what's going on though. The two things share one very very crucial detail in common that y'all keep pretending isnt being mentioned repeatedly in this thread. Deal with that or do not expect to continue this conversation.
What detail is that? It can't be the non-consensual touch since I've mentioned that in most of my comments outright, including my last reply to you.
It's the fact that non-consensually touching a stranger's child is absolutely unacceptable behavior. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that? Are you looking to get away with something like this in the future and want to make sure it's downplayed sufficiently? Get outta here with this pretense of not understanding the issue.
So the thing that was regularly addressed is the thing you think nobody is talking about. And there's not a single comment saying non-consensual touching is okay or questioning if it can be, but somehow you imagined there was.
Meanwhile you're ignoring what I told you what I'm actually questioning. Don't pretend like you were ever trying to have a conversation when you were just looking to get angry about something nobody said.
It was, on me. And it happens because assholes like you normalize abuse and defend aggressors instead of victims.
It does, the child's consent was disregarded and her personal space was violated. This is unacceptable.
I'm still not convinced you realize you're literally trying to defend abuse.
Fuck off.
This is not about you, and that's weird as hell that you're saying you've been traumatized and violated by reading a story of an old man getting beat up for patting a child on the head without asking first. This is a next-level martyrdom complex.
If you think I'm "normalizing abuse" by taking issue with your idea of abuse as irrational, ridiculous, and downright stupid, then you can follow through with what that means for your assertion that I'm normalizing abuse.
A pat on the head is not a punch to the face, the same way that tripping and falling because someone accidentally bumped into you is not the same as having someone break your ankles with a golf club. Flattening two very different actions to a common denominator in order to treat them both as extremely as possible is irrational and, interestingly, a highly aggressive and hostile act in and of itself.
A pat on the head is not abuse. I question your notions of what abuse is if you're throwing around that term so liberally. I challenge you to go to a group of abuse victims and tell them that an old man patted you on the head so you're equally as aggrieved and traumatized as someone who experiences domestic violence that leaves bruises and black eyes.
Then we'll see who has to fuck off.
The father apologized and bought the old man a drink afterwards. It's obvious that you feel very strongly about this, I understand it could be upsetting
The father should not apologize, the old man should. He got off lucky.
I was abused, so it is a bit of a sore subject. It has been normalized. We need to reverse that. Children are human beings. Old men do not have the right to touch them. It's alarming that so many people are getting this backwards. Think a bit more, please.
It is wrong to escalate quickly to violence against an ambiguous transgression, especially with someone older for whom a fall can easily be life threatening. The goal of a culture where a stranger doesn't do that is a correct goal, and one we share - it is achieved by firmly but peacefully correcting the old man but using the incident as a teachable moment for the child. Explain to them what should have happened and why. It's not too late for them to create a kinder, more respectful culture in time. I think going straight to violence is a misstep on that path, and making amends in the end was the right call.
But now the message is, "old people can touch whoever they want and you'll be punished for stopping them."
Stupid, shallow, selfish.
That does not make it okay. What the actual fuck?
I feel zero sympathy, dude should not have touched a child.
Justice was almost served, but apparently he didn't get his ass kicked hard enough.
I am worried for you repeatedly concluding that violence is the only way to send a message of disapproval.
You can use your voice, you can use verbal signs like getting up and closer, without touching. Showing that you are ready to physically defend your child if the stranger does not back off right now. There is a huge realm of interaction between “letting it pass” and “violence”
The message the child receives is, someone randomly invaded my personal space and my parent got very upset with this person.
What message does it send to a child to respond to any socially wrong interaction with instant violence.
Being a parent though i can understand the sudden emption causing a violent outbursts. But at least these parents understand after the fact that they could responded better.
And the old man and every other pervert have been encouraged to offend again. Really fucked up that you're not getting this. The old man did something wrong and harmful, and now is pretending to be the victim.
That's because we live in a complex world where multiple things can be true. Trauma can limit our ability to process this, in my experience. The old man was in the wrong, and he was a victim of violence. I'm not trying to fight you, I just think you might have limited objectivity because of your personal experiences.
When you say "it's really fucked up that you're not getting this", you might be noticing the disconnect between your interpretation of events and the way people who aren't viewing the situation through a lens of trauma might see it.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm using your history against you, those are just the cards I see on the table and just one possible interpretation.
The old man was in the wrong and didn't learn shit. He was not a victim. He made an unacceptable choice.
When your kids are the ones being touched, I hope you tell them the truth: that you personally encouraged their abusers.
I hope you get to a better place mentally, this isn't healthy.
My parents hit me before I could think. Instead of stopping them, you're defending their mindset.
Fuck you. Children are people.
So are old people. Everyone's people. The golden rule covers this. Are you going to condone violence just because violence was done to you?
Edit: I feel foolish for assuming good faith in retrospect. How utterly sad whether they are serious or trolling.
Put yourself in the girl's shoes. I would rather not be touched by random strangers. I hate the fact that stupid, selfish internet people have normalized my lack of autonomy. I hate you for being a coward while feigning moral superiority.
Literally yes, it's called defense. Would you let yourself be killed instead of fighting back? The old man was the aggressor. It would be wrong to let him act that way with no consequences. I care more about victims than their abusers, personally. If you choose not to fight at all, you're choosing to help the abusers.
Listen, I wish you well but I have to disengage from this interaction. Good luck out there.
I pity your children.
Please stay disengaged from this topic. The world your world view leads to is worse than this one and that's not okay.
How do you know this is a pervert and not just an awkward confused elder?
It could have been a pervert yes, thats why you get up and tell them off. Make it clear that they’re being inappropriate.
But you don’t actually know their motives.
I also don’t think the old man is pretending anything, it’s seems to be his son who is doing that and talked to the media.
Personally i think that son should realise dad is at a stage where they should not go outside on their own.
I'm not sure son gives a shit about his father or the victim, too many dollar signs in his eyes as he seeks "justice".
So it’s possibly the son who is to blame for possibly not taking good care of mentally ill dad.
They might even be trying to pass off their own guilt of knowing that dad needs a caretaker to go in public into blaming the family.
But now i feel even more that i should quote this part of the article, cause its all we have been doing.
I think the point stands even if we ignore this specific incident: If you touch someone in public without their consent, especially a child, you can and probably should be harmed in retaliation. Boundaries and consent are essential. Fuck around, find out.
Can absolutely, should without further context? Hard no.
If they pose an actual threat you have a right to defend your family. Thats an entirely different then they should be hurt as payback.
Mentally ill people are not fucking around. They are also not finding out because they don’t always understand what they did or why others reacted, They just need help.
Actually i think you might be one of those people.
My kids have like all kids acted inappropriately in public at times, and i don’t want to know how you would respond to it if they accidentally invaded your personal space in the process.
Good point. Ideally, we would not have such a mental illness epidemic in the first place, and some people blur the line between "mentally ill" and "creep", but in the interests of not harming the innocent we should be cautious to exercise undue force.
My christian parents have been hitting me since before I could think. I am seeking help, but I live in the US. Everything's slow and the therapists have not been good. I'm trying a fifth one in a week or so.
At young ages, that is typical. They are still developing, learning boundaries. I do not advocate hitting children. Assuming the old man was not mentally ill, he should have known better.
Absolutely. Standing up for your child is not encouraging violence, it's teaching them that their boundaries are important. Those are parents who care about their child's developing self-worth and there need to be more like them.