I’ll try to see if I catch examples happening

Sources like The Guardian, Reuters, Telegraph, CNN, BBC are sometimes allowed and sometimes removed on rule 1.

The latter case is usually evident while lurking and finding a deep long comment thread. Sometimes one user there has deleted messages and there’s another’s rule 3 content comments left. Apparently these cases seem to usually be mutual rule 3 but it looks like they’re treated differently.

It is somewhat opaque how sometimes the rules apply and sometimes they don’t, like news sources on rule 1, and iirc rule 3 in general. Deleting content should have the mod informing the user and the rest community what happened and have a way for the users to manage mistakes, be it either accidental rule breaks by the user or wrongful modding.

I usually just lurk and post only if I see a topic which doesn’t seem to be posted yet. Seems like eastern police state & oligarchy has been that lately, and I think it’s definitely something that is interesting from a communist human rights point of view. I don’t know if they’re taboo topics or just happenstance that I saw two of these lately before they hit here.

Yup. Surprised me as well. I’ve thought of it being an ok enough source, just apply normal media criticism. But Lemmy doesn’t have transparency on whose mod decision it was or how to report those which seem to be on false premises or accidentally… Maybe some day.

The Guardian is not allowed on this community as per rule 1

Good call. I don’t know if the new information about the release from being jailed is fake news, here’s an older source

Thanks for the confirmations

I was thinking of that situation as well, and I remember there was some foul play around that plan. The gist might have been that the Russian envoy did appear at the location but wouldn’t negotiate. Time will tell if we ever find out the truth.

Not a controversial stance for an European nation but the joint statement is interesting. Could this be a part of a deal for China to flip on Russia. Does China choose to stay with an ideological reactionary ally or move towards collaborations

The headline is a bit misleading. The article elaborates some, for example:

In other remarks, Crosetto said that if Russian troops were to occupy Kyiv, it would “inevitably lead to a clash with other nations, which would not accept Russian tanks on their borders.”

European nations have been voicing the need of peace from the beginning, it’s just that the negotiating third parties can’t get Russia to participate in a dialogue. Which leads to desperate stuff like France asking for China to do their part (desperate because they’d need some unlikely deal incentive to flip).

They kinda pretend to play both sides, kinda not. Left hand says peace talks (without action and on Russia’s terms), right hand helps Russia with resources.

So was Russia and it was supposed to be untouchable. Now they’re in a war economy and losing resources

Is this meant to be to some other thread? I don’t think anyone mentioned lynchings but yeah they lynch us, we know, I know. If you create a side against there, the side is the black lynching despicable settler overseer side.

Removed by mod

The oligarchs really push the division agenda, but it’s only artificial and doesn’t stand inspection

I’m sorry you see me as an enemy and act reactively. I see we the people as one and am not related to the image you need to attack.

Edit: and after all the compassion that horrible projection of a reply is what we see

Yea muricans are always a good example of the lot. Thanks for discussing and taking part in the philosophical pondering, it’s not usual here!

Isn’t it great when the bourgeoisie chat about how they control us as cattle

It’s not a metaphor relating to those. You can substitute the apple for anything you like, the fruit is not a relevant object. It just carries similar properties. They can be called ‘Notexistilandia’, ‘United Territories of Nowhereon’ or ‘Countrystan’. Whatever helps.

You’re very close with Chomsky and people not knowing!

What I mean is that the mystical prophecies of one true holy and pure — despite the evidence, like we’ve discussed, rely much on faith, instead of (and sometimes contrary) to knowledge. And general populations “knowledge”, fooled, propagandized is just that — much closer to faith.

More Chomsky:

I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that it’s a major phenomenon for people in general, and you can understand why it would be. It does, apparently, provide personal sustenance, but also bonds of association and solidarity and a means for expressing elements of one’s personality that are often very valuable elements. To many people it does that. In my view, there’s nothing wrong with that. My view could be wrong, of course, but my position is that we should not succumb to irrational belief.

Idealistic nationalist supremacy is just a form of religion.