1081
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
1081 points (100.0% liked)
World News
50602 readers
1097 users here now
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.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean you can think it’s good for people to be abducted under some circumstances. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but at least then you’d have to justify it. “Arrested” already means justified in most people’s minds. It’s a thought-terminating cliche, and as long as we make that distinction, it will be abused as in this case.
Using less savory words like kidnapping or abduction more accurately relays the severity and violence that’s happening. And yes, violence is sometimes necessary, but it’s still unsavory.
You (I hope) recognize that
vs.
are different beyond just the material action of forcefully taking someone against their will. There is context that matters. So we use different words to describe the different contextual relationships. This example is a clear difference. I really hope we don't have to debate that. It's why I'm using it as an example. So we can remove the moral ambiguity and agree to this distinction.
There are obviously less extreme examples of this. That is the why understanding how language is used is important. In reality we say "the child was kidnapped" and "the pedophile was arrested". It is vocabulary that describes the relationships of morality that we as a society assume to uphold.
By your reasoning they "are both acts of violence and taking someone against their will and imprisoning them". I get that mate. But the world you want to live in where we describe both these actions as "kidnapping" does not exist.
Like, in what reality is your opinion even useful to reality? We don't live in a world where language is used the way you want it to be. You need to understand the world you live in and the way language is used.
Understanding how and why the media uses words like "arrest" vs. "kidnap" to infer a false justification is significantly more helpful than saying "well we should simplify language". Human language isn't a programming language. It can't be. It needs to deal with significantly more ambiguity, emotions, and morals.
Like, how are you even trying to apply this type of reasoning to the world? It's useless for describing reality. Language isn't used the way you want it to. And it never will work that way. What you're trying to argue for isn't useful to describing reality.
Language is always subject to change and evolution. I can’t predict the future and neither can you. I think explaining that context verbally is less harmful than implying it with weasel words.
And even if my desired change doesn’t happen, I think it’s valuable to challenge the assumptions built into these words to make people think about them and the way they are used instead of just blindly accepting “the criminal was arrested”.
Weasel words? Kidnapped and arrested literally both have implied meanings related to innocence. What is a non weasel word for that to you? I feel like you're just arguing to argue at this point.
No, arrested implies guilt. Kidnapped implies the action wasn’t related to the victim’s behavior. If it was, then the context can be made clear.
It’s better to assume innocence than guilt because that means any violence committed requires justification. An arrest is automatically justified in the minds of most people and they won’t ever question it.
Yep. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You literally agree that both words have implied meanings related to state of innocence of the subject. But for some reason are writing your responses like you disagree.
Or, I think you're just really bad with relationships of vocabulary. When I said "implied meanings related to innocence" I am talking both about how
arrest: implies that the subject may not be innocent or may be innocent. It is not conclusive and has room for doubt. It implies there is some reason to believe that evidence may exist for guilt. But it is by no means concluding anything solid. The SUBJECT of the sentence is where more meaning is derived. Saying the pedophile was arrested implies guilt. The person is being labeled conclusively as a criminal. It's also indicating that the subject doing the action (arresting) is a valid authority. Saying Greta was arrested does not imply guilt so strongly. She is not being labeled with the adjective of a criminal. But it still indicates the subject doing the action of arrest has authority to do the arrest. Which in the case of Israel they do not.
Kidnapped: implies the subject is absolutely innocent. It's a much stronger word to use and SHOULD have been used to describe the situation of the flotillas.
You for some reason want to default to using kidnapped for ALL situations? A very conclusive word that implies absolute innocence of the subject being acted on, and absolute guilt of the subject doing the action? Yeah, no, kidnapped is a very strong conclusive word. And it's WHY it should be used to describe the flotilla kidnappings. Because it's a very clear case of who is at fault and who is innocent.
But to use that in all situations is just absolutely stupid. You don't understand the English language if you think that.
If you're looking for a neutral word to describe the act. There is already a word for that. It's took.
I have no idea what you mean by this. I’m arguing the same point I always was, that we should avoid the word arrest in favor of terms that do not imply the guilt of the victim and the legitimacy of the state. But we can stop if you like.
Reread my comment if you care. I edited it. But this is exhausting or a misunderstanding.
I could keep going but you seem to be expressing a desire to stop this debate. Why are you still arguing then?
Do you feel attacked? I’m attacking an idea, not you, to be clear. If you’re tired of defending this idea, then why not stop? This is truly a puzzling interaction.
Because I'm autistic enough to be bothered with how wrong you are.
Abduction implies someone secretly being taken away and kept at an unknown location, their fate unknown and probably someone trying to ransom them to their family.
Here we have pictures of the IDF taking her, we know exactly where they're taking her and what's going to happen. They're not going to physically harm her, going to give her an inconsequential slap on the wrist, and put her on a plane back home.
It's ok to feel that's wrong, but trying to make it seem more horrible by using words invented for something else just seems petty.
Do we know that?