this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
430 points (90.1% liked)

World News

51389 readers
1390 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

US President Donald Trump signed the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law Thursday, completing the passage of the largest military spending bill in US history—$901 billion, or over $1 trillion when combined with supplemental funding passed earlier this year.

The Senate voted 77-20 on Wednesday to pass the bill. The Democratic leadership, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, voted for the bill. They were joined by Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, both of whom released a video last month calling on military personnel to disobey illegal orders—as Trump was sending the US military on a murder spree off the coast of Latin America.

Citing Trump’s statements about using troops to shoot protesters in America, Slotkin invoked the legacy of the Nuremberg tribunals, which convicted Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against peace. But when it came time to vote, this invocation was revealed to be completely meaningless. Slotkin voted to hand Trump the resources to pursue his military adventure against Venezuela...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wikipedia list of logical fallacies

I think you should go look at that link again.

and that's when tankies like me are careful of western sources.

Right, so only taking the points that they agree with you on.

If you believe otherwise, you can bring me some examples instead of generally referring to something

Here's one:

https://lemmy.world/comment/20878099

Here's another doing this when asked to cite the UN or Reuters as a neutral source:

https://lemmy.world/comment/19851916

[–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The Wikipedia list of logical fallacies was a meme exaggeration. It's a trope that edgy redditors will answer to serious comments by discarding their content according to one of the fallacies in the Wikipedia list. But sure, I'll answer to you accordingly: fallacy fallacy. Even if my comment were a fallacy (which I disagree), that's irrelevant because a logical fallacy can still be true. How about you answer to the content of the comment then, and not to a logical structure.

Regarding the other stuff about western sources and tankies, my claim was this:

If Reuters reports on domestic events in western nations with evidence, that's generally trustworthy. When it comes to geopolitical topics, the thing changes from "journalistic reporting of easily provable stuff" to "geopolitically charged claims without serious journalistic work", and that's when tankies like me are careful of western sources

And you bring me one link about Venezuela and one link about DPRK, the former including links to western "Freedom Burger Eagle association" type organizations, not even to journalistic or UN claims. This seems to align very well with what I claimed.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Even if my comment were a fallacy (which I disagree), that's irrelevant because a logical fallacy can still be true

A logical fallacy can be true yes but when it's things like red herrings and ignoratio elenchis that don't contribute to the discussion, they don't need to be brought up. If you actually looked at that link that I provided instead of just outright dismissing it because it's 'edgy' or what not, you'd see examples there of how certain arguments don't contribute to the discussion, only muddying conversation.

the former including links to western "Freedom Burger Eagle association" type organizations

Right, so you're you're doing the very thing you were questioning that commenter of doing: Disregarding the source instead of the content.

Fwiw, I'm not saying it's wrong to do that, I'm only showing you the contradiction in your claims.