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
You've worked hard to defend your position that something good has come from political conservatism. And still, you've provided no evidence that conservatism has ever resulted in anything good.
Racists can find value in progressive policies. In your example, racists found value in the policies of the leader of the progressive party. That does not make those policies conservative policies. They are just progressive policies that some conservatives (or racists) find some value in.
Conservatives neither need nor want your defense of them. They are proud that their policies are designed to harm and deceive people. Harm is their platform. It always has been. Why are you doing such intense gymnastics to defend conservatism? What good can come from your defense of the indefensible?
You are either misunderstanding my intentions or using a straw man argument, I am not defending conservatism. I wanted to point out at that national park may be something that is considered good today, and that, surprisingly, it started with conservative ideas (industry, capital preservation, racism). Most people today probably don't know about that because they associate national park with environmentalism, which is rather a left progressive idea. That's why I wrote this initial comment.
You are using the progressive policies of a progressive leader of his time as an example of something good that came from conservatism. It's not a good example to support your position that something good has come from conservatism.
Progressive leaders created the national park institutions, but not the concept of conserving natural space, which was initially done to conserve natural resources for human use (sometimes with capitalists reasons or racist reasons), not to preserver nature as we know them today. See the wikipedia page for more details about that.
👍
I mean, thanks for the good faith effort I guess, but you're still objectively incorrect as a matter of the historical record.
You would have done better to single out the Interstate freeway system as "conservative," since it was created under Eisenhower. But even that is a weak example since it wasn't opposed by liberals at all.
Let me know what you think I wrote that was objectively incorrect. I get the feeling most people reading this thread and following the downvotes think I'm claiming the USA national parks were solely created by conservative, which I didn't. I wanted to point at that conservative ideas was what started what later gave birth to national parks as we know them, and not only in the USA. Maybe some national parks locations we know today wouldn't exist if it hadn't been protected for conservative reasons initially. Note also, that I used the word maybe, from the beginning, because it's certainly not the only reason they exist today. I admit guilt to use a short, surprising sentence without further explanation to raise questions, but it seems almost all reactions got negatively oriented from there because of how touchy politics is here, especially if it doesn't follow the left main stream. This saddens me because with the default ranking system, this interesting thread got buried, and fewer people could read it.
I appreciate your persistence in explanation, your point became more clear.
Right on. Just chiming in to say that everything you say is totally congruent with what I learned about the conservation movement in my environmental studies courses. I get plenty of reminders geographically, too, since I live not too far from the USDA Forest Products Laboratory on Gifford Pinchot Drive, as well a Muir Knoll, named for preservationist John Muir. The conservationists and the preservationists were ideological rivals—a store of resources for judicious human use vs. nature's value pro se—and the modern environmental movement is much more aligned with the preservationists. The conservationist movement was more c*nservative, relatively.
I guess sometimes on social media, you run across a Two Minutes Hate gathering, where nuance is not welcome, without being able to realize it in advance.
Yeah that's what is described in the wikipedia article but people here read conservatism, they see red and can't discuss anymore.