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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
It seems weird to consider half the people as "protected class". But only one gender. Dunno why they didn't just make hate crime the charge and make misogyny fall under that
They're a protected class because they're singled out for violence because of their class. And it's a real world problem not a logic quiz. Misogyny and misandry are not equivalent in reality the way they are in the dictionary.
Does that make hate crime murder against men less worth prosecuting as such? Why shouldn't the legal definition be symmetrical?
If someone murdered a male due to their sex, would you treat that any differently than someone murdering a female due to their sex?
Nothing more than sex based whataboutism.
Could you elaborate on why you believe this is not a valid line of questioning?
Check my profile. We've been discussing this for hours.
Sentenced to 4 hours of online gender discourse
I would assume the thinking is centered around wanting to draw specific attention to the issue. And to more clearly cite it as a unique thing for awareness purposes.
This. The goal is to send a message. Over half the women killed were murdered by intimate partners. Such a crime would already be punished by life imprisonment for Aggravated Homicide.
However femicide also includes refusal for emotional relationship, or resistance to limiting her freedom as motivators, as admissible motives for femicide.
https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20211564_mh0421097enn_pdf_0.pdf
So, essentially its targeted towards violent incels among other specifics now.
Awesome.
So the data I linked alleges that ~43% of female homicides in Italy are committed by a current or former spouse. While a global estimate says that 29% of all female homicides are committed by current/former spouse or a family member.
So while I think this thread brings the incels out of the wood works... it's not really targeting incels.
Exactly. This should have been something that applies to all: 'murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime'.
Having the law give more consideration to one sex over another, particularly with something like murder, is quite sexist.
This would be true if there were commensurate rates of murder where the motivation is misandry. Otherwise you just like the veneer of equality to cover up the rot underneath.
If perpetrators happen to be of one sex more often, then it means the rates of being charged with the relevant crime will be higher for that sex.
A crime must be treated equally, regardless of sex. The law treating one differently based on their sex is itself sexist. As I stated before, this should have been something that applies to all: ‘murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime’.
How is it sexist? Both men and women are equally culpable for their actions under this law. It just takes into account intent which is difficult to prove in most cases. Nothing about the law takes the sex of the perpetrator into account.
Murdering someone due to their sex is not illegal under this law, if the victim is a male. Murdering a male due to their sex should be no less illegal.
It’s always illegal to murder someone it just sets the circumstance when a crime can also be considered a hate crime.
Then we wrap back around to the start. That would only be true if there were a commensurate killings based on misandry. You keep jumping back and forth between perpetrators and victims. The lawmakers saw an issue and created a law to target that issue. If you have evidence that they're ignoring them feel free to show it, but nothing about this law is sexist on the face of it.
I would have to disagree. The quantity is irrelevant, the existence of the hate crime is all that really matters.
I can understand what they are doing here (bringing attention to the rampant mysogony), but I do think that could have been done better by having it be a hate crime law with a definition on sex/gender as the motivation, but call it out or name it to address the rampant mysogony.
But a hate crime is a hate crime, and should be treated as a hate crime regardless.
Edit: Just to say, I don't get the impression that what I suggested is the case here, but maybe I'm misinterpreting things. Feel free to point out if it addresses hate crimes based on identity more generally, I'd be happy to hear it. Doesnt seem to be the case from the article though.
To take the example to its most extreme, you believe that a law that focuses on something that does happen regularly (in my country it's the leading cause of murder in women) should be expanded to something that happens rarely. And the reason is optics? Am I misinterpreting your point?
Let's try it this way.
Hate crimes based on sexual orientation occur many times more often than those based on gender expression.
By your logic, we don't need hate crimes based on gender expression.
Hate crimes based on sexual identity are drastically higher for black people than Hispanic or white people.
By your logic we would only need to have hate crime legislation for sexual orientation of black people.
Does that make more sense to you as to why I say a hate crime is a hate crime?
You are saying that only the more frequent crimes require legislation.
I am saying the particulars (sexual identity, gender, race) aren't as relevant as the fact that its a hate-based crime. How often it happens doesnt matter. The fact that its based on hate is what matters.
You're unduly expanding the scope of the argument. I'm just arguing that laws should be based in reality and not based on how it makes people feel about them, and the reality is that the leading cause of murders in women are based on misogyny. The same is not true for men and thus the expansion of hate crimes doesn't need to be extended to them. I never once suggested only the most prevalent hate crimes should be put forward in exclusion of others. We should start from a standard of not expanding hate crimes unnecessarily and move forward from there.
No, I'm contextualizing.
Frequency, irrelevant.
And in reality, murdering anyone based on who they are born as is an entirely different thing than anything else.
The same WHAT.
You are referring to frequency. Repeatedly. I'm sorry, but either there is a fundamental language barrier at play, or I can only consider you as being incredibly exclusionary.
The gender identity of the person should have zero bearing on this. The fact that its a crime based on hate of someone's gender identity should.
Thats it. Full stop.
We will simply keep going in circles until you explain why frequency is irrelevant.
See my comment full of examples of why.
If you need further explanation than that, I don't know what to tell you. I hope one day you expand your view to accept that others can be at risk, and are no less at risk because others like them aren't killed more often.
Even having to write that sentence seems absolutely insane to me.
Enjoy your day. I'm done.
Thank you for staying the course here, I agree wholeheartedly that the frequency should not affect which hate crimes are illegal.
Yes.
Frequency isnt relevant.
No.... And I don't understand how youre arriving at that in any way, shape, or form.
It would seem you are completely, and I have no idea where you are misinterpreting things so wildly to suggest the reason is optics for me to even begin to clarify.
The reason I landed on optics is because no one has laid out an argument for any other reason. If you have one I'd love to see it. Simply asserting that frequency is irrelevant doesn't prove it.
I made another comment to explain in a different way.
Correct. Murdering a male should be just as illegal as murdering a female.
It's like you can't read past my first sentence. Nothing you've said has shown any light on how this is a sexist law. We're both clear in the fact that you don't like it, but that isn't the barrier in front of you.
Some people argue that intent shouldn't be considered when sentencing people for their crimes.
I believe intent impacts a perpetrator's potential rehabilitation (something a lot of countries put very little effort into when keeping people incarcerated) and should therefore affect sentencing.
If that's how the other commenter feels I'd be happy to have a different conversation, but judging by his replies I don't know if he's arguing from there or not
Better to invent a new word where the word parts don't explain it and so they have to explain it every fucking time like that girl whose name is only and forever "Megan with two Rs".