Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
One man representing how many voters?
One man cares about what is in pants of other pair of adults.
Also he didn’t represent majority at election time (29% in first round). Turnout was just 66%. In second round he was just 2% ahead. Only 10kkk voted for him, out of 29kkk eligible. And I’m sure even less will vote for him if elections would be tomorrow. In any case controlling who can marry who based on their sex is pathetic mindset for a society
10 kkk? 10 billion?
Yeah, I was sleepy af. I meant kk of course, millions.
Everyone who did not go to vote, accepted and is ok with him. I think voting in a way that makes your vote not count is a better statement. If majority of non-voters are really against it, you would see it if 20+% would vote but in a way it doesn't count. For non-voters, i assume they voted for the winner. Nothing else makes sense for me. Also it still showed that more cared for him vs people caring for someone else.
No-vote doesn’t mean they are ok. If both candidates going to oppress your group, by not casting vote do you disagree with both or agree with the one who won?
I’d argue no-vote actually goes against president who is constantly vetoing. If you look at those who didn’t vote as “don’t care” that means they are open to whatever new policy to come. Then they are not supporting president veto. How is 1/3 for president (for his veto power) more than 2/3 against president or “don’t care”?
I’m not supporting no-vote stance. I think you still should vote for what is less evil for you personally. But some people just gave up on system.
Didn’t get point about 20%, can you elaborate?
In my you clearly agree with who wins. My point was that if you disagree with all, you go vote but in a way it is registered as "mistake/error/wrong" vote. That way you don't vote for one, as you don't like any and your vote still gets counted. No one can tell anyone that if a big percentage voted "wrong/erroneous" that all those were not able to vote. That does not happen, only if (at least the majority) did show with this that they did not want to vote for anyone. They wanted to vote and therefor gave their vote, but in a way it gets counted without giving the vote to anyone. If you stay away from voting, you are ok with whoever wins. Either way it's already something wrong if you have to think about this situation.
Too many to be concentrated in one person, the representation is destined to be inaccurate and subcomplex.
Who the fuck cares, this is not a decision that should depend on a democratic majority either way.