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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
-
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
Marriage is heavily bound up in the ownership of property and the political networks of elite families. If you get under the fold...
seems to be a broadly unpopular compromise solution, satisfying very few people in practice
And there is the problem of course. Which is absurd. Because who ever is in power gets to determine what a traditional family value is. And that is why citizens need to argue that government is a set of codified rules, bound to all, not some morality maker.
That is the nut of any political system. You can't just throw up your hands and announce "We need to get government out of X", because that's loser talk. It implies you've sworn off ever having a majoritarian view and just want to hide in obscurity. Ultimately, you need a popular representative majority. And the good news is...
Mass Line politics would suggest change is in the wind, whether the old guard of social conservatives want it or not. But in a system like Hong Kong's (one pioneered by the British and staunchly championed by American Libertarians until about five years ago) that change has to occur via shifting social attitudes in the municipal mega-corps.
One of the bigger frictions in Hong Kong politics is this stark divide between the (heavily conservative Catholic) ruling class and the (far more Buddhist/secular) working class. Even the handover back to China hasn't done much to change the dynamic, as Beijing has prioritized loyalty to the CCP over real progressive politics. Turns out Eastern Capitalists are as happy to sell out for a quick buck as their Western Peers.
The problem isn't that the government lacks a set of codified laws. It's that the laws are shit and need changing.
Maybe the inertia in the legislature will give the courts more latitude to simply nullify anti-LGBTQ provisions, as happened in the US state of Iowa in 2009 under Varnum v. Brien. Or maybe the public can stir up a big enough stink that Hong Kong corporate heads relent. I guess we'll see.
I think you missed the basic point: if it doesn't apply to all citizens it cannot apply at all. That is not loser talk. That is simple to the point and is exactly what you want in a government.
I appreciate everything else you said however. Relating it to the real world situation is reality.
The conservative response to this has always been "The law does apply to all people. One Adult Man, One Adult Woman is a universal rule for all marriages." The libertarian attitude of "Get government out of marriage" doesn't work in this regard, because marriage is a legal compact with a host of downstream consequences.
Marriage is a political institution. It cannot be depoliticized, only reformed in one way or another.
A conservative would ask you why the woman needs to be an adult?
Again, the only real answer is you have an adult citizen who wants to form a contract (because marriages are a social and/or religious concept) with another citizen. Done.
Exactly what you said: it is a legal contract with downstream consequences (well not really if you dont want to bother with it at all, but I digress). A legal contract. You cannot pick and choose who gets to make contracts, because if you do, they really have no legal basis.
Red heads cant sign contracts with left handed people. That is where you will end up.
Sure. There's plenty of variation in their deplorable beliefs.
State legislatures have enormous latitude in deciding the validity of contracts. It's one of their fundamental roles.