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
Comparing Carney to PP is a weak deflection. Leadership isn’t about who’s less flawed; it’s about who can effectively govern. Carney’s economic expertise is undeniable, but public trust and coalition-building are critical, especially in a fractured political landscape. His past roles lacked the messy compromises of real politics, leaving doubts about his adaptability and vision.
Your critique of PP is speculative and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether PP has clearance or plays political games doesn’t absolve Carney of his own deficiencies. This strawman argument shifts focus away from evaluating Carney’s ability to lead, which remains the core issue.
Deflection doesn’t strengthen your case—it weakens it. Leadership demands scrutiny, not comparisons.
😾😾😾
I really don't understand the difference...
Why is PP's past "speculative and irrelevant" but Carney's isn't? If anything, we've seen PP be lackluster and ineffective in Parliament while any comments about Carney are speculative.
And during an election where we have limited options comparison is necessary and unavoidable
Vilmos, the distinction lies in the nature of speculation. Criticisms of PP stem from his documented failures—lack of coalition-building, refusal to obtain security clearance, and divisive rhetoric. These are observable patterns that directly impact his ability to govern. In contrast, concerns about Carney focus on his untested adaptability and vision in the political realm, which are speculative because he hasn’t held elected office or navigated the complexities of public trust and compromise.
Your point about limited options during an election is valid, but comparison alone doesn’t absolve scrutiny. Settling for “better than PP” risks ignoring whether Carney can lead effectively in a fractured landscape. Leadership demands foresight and adaptability—not just avoiding the worst-case scenario.
😼😼😼