yeah super majorities are so hard to get seems kinda nuts that they required 100%. could do two thirds or even three fourths. I mean three fourths is really hard to get.
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
245 points (100.0% liked)
World News
57878 readers
1635 users here now
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
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I can see that getting vetoed.
Yeah, the only way to pass such a change to the law, would be to force it against their will... Or buy out the governments that oppose it...
Hmmm...
Hmmm...
Where would that lead? What would such a set of actions be called???
Hmmmmm...
Do you want the total war?
Because this is how.
Why should anyone have veto? Same goes for UN. The only thing it does is letting few being free to do whatever they want. Would terrorist country like US or Russia decide to nuke some smaller country? They have veto, so why not!
Or terrorist country like USA decide to kidnap President of another country and steal their Oil, for example.
The UN is a diplomatic platform, not a global government. The idea is that if the particular countries couldn't veto, they'd leave the organisation altogether instead. Having everyone take part in the same diplomatic organisation is the main goal, not producing actionable resolutions.
So what is the point of it then? Small country roes something terrible, they get condemned. US murders people without any oversight.
The point is to have a dialogue and to allow the largest influences to shape the dialogue. It's not meant to have any power beyond diplomatic conversation. The most hostile countries to the US still get in a plane and fly to New York to participate. Think about that.
Because getting small countries to stop helps reduce war deaths.
Who gets the big countries to stop killing the small countries?
If nothing else works, other big countries. However, it is generally a high bar to get two big countries to go to war with each other.
You have a deeply flawed understanding of who is leading the world in amount of war deaths and why.
Feel free to correct me, but you're the one who asked the question. Just insulting isn't a good rhetorical device.
No one. That's supposed to be NATO's job.
Lol
No? NATO is there to prevent revolutionary backlash against imperialist countries.
that's what they want you to believe
I never said they were good at it, I said that was their job.
No, it's supposed to be a defensive alliance by definition (cough - Libya - cough). Not world police.
To allow the big countries a place of communication to prevent wider conflict.
I think once the US and EU realize that the "Unipolar moment" is fucking over we'll get a lot more use out of the UN.
People wanted to join the EU and not lose sovereignty.
The veto is the sole reason these institutions still exist. There's no way in hell any member would give up that power.
You should put more thought into the arguments you make, because clearly 11 members would.
Cool, in the EU all countries have veto power. In the UN, all permanent members of the security council have veto power. You just need one of them to refuse to give up that power. In the EU, I believe this could somewhat work, but in the UN ? No way the US, China, Russia, France or the UK would give it up without leaving the institution.
I think that's what OP meant. That changing the veto rule with the EU is something that's possible. Your prior comment made it seem like the whole EU wouldn't exist
I like those 5 principles.
I hope something close to that will succeed.