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
Not to press the issue, but you seemed to suggest murder as a viable solution. In my opinion, destroying a building, regardless of it's age or significance, is not as bad as murder. I get that we're anti billionaires here, but would you legitimately have preferred that this crowd drag the wealthy out of their homes (likely damaging the homes in the process) and executing them in the street? Would that have seemed more like "good sense" to you?
It seems like we both agree it was time for something drastic, but you seem to suggest this was senseless rather than directed violence.
I'm not making a statement on murder specifically, but I'll indulge this as an intellectual exercise.
I don't think it's a matter of opinion that violence against billionaires is a net good, and we've seen it empirically. Remember in 2025 when a health care CEO was murdered in the street in New York? That single act led to tens of thousands of health insurance claims being approved that otherwise would have been denied, potentially saving tens of thousands of lives. These were lives who PAID for a service, only to have it denied so the money could be pocketed.
Tens of thousands of lives that the law and billionaires saw fit to be murdered via private enterprise, to fatten wallets that are already sufficiently fat for their bearers' permanent economic security.
Why should billionaires expect safety when they've created this state of violence for the poor and middle class?
Just so you know, I wasn't attempting to attribute anything to you unnecessarily. I was mainly going off this from your original comment, which might have been hyperbolic:
I totally agree with the "no justice no peace" argument, I just was trying to understand why you were suggesting it wasn't "good sense" to make the legislators scared by attacking their place of work and instead attacking the billionaires. Obviously billionaires are a huge problem, but they are mostly a symptom of a broken political and economic system that does not hold them to account. The issues the protesters seem to have are mostly related to school funding. Billionaires, to my knowledge, cannot personally decide to fund the construction of public schools and increase teacher salaries. They can certainly lobby to have that done, but they are not directly able to change that. Maybe things are really different in France, but the people who can actually make the change now are the officials currently working in government. Scaring THEM into either raising taxes or somehow finding the budget to fix schools seems like the most immediate way to fix the problem. Sure, billionaires may be paying them off, but if they're worried that these people are going to burn your home next, they're more likely to do what they want than what the billionaires want. Maybe if you suggested attacking the government officials it would feel different, but the actual problem can be solved by the government so I feel like that is a great place to start. It seemed like you thought it was stupid to attack a government building, but it makes sense to me. Attacking billionaires seems like attacking the symptom of the problem, where the problem is actually that the government no longer works for the people. It may be because they are being bribed, but then the solution seems to be to make the government fear the people again. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending billionaires, but it seems like the wrong outlet in this case.
The healthcare situation you described improved because the billionaires had direct control over those decisions. Mind you, some people were still not helped, but the issue was with the actions of private companies not the government. If we took it out on officials standing in the way of M4A, think of the lives that could be saved there.