this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
151 points (95.8% liked)

World News

57423 readers
777 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We could have had a deep philosophical … conversation about this.

Except you fell for the same trap hundreds of thousands of philosophers before you had. Talking right past people because you refuse to understand what they meant by the words they chose to use.

“Artificial” describes the process something underwent to become what it is. It doesn’t mean that it’s materially different than its natural counterpart.

So what’s ironic is that the deeply philosophical conversation you referenced; that conversation could have happened, but instead you chose to hop on your high horse and argue nonsense about material differences while the argument was really about procedural differences.

Had you rose your point, reasonably and fairly so, as a congruent but also slightly off-topic one, it might have been entertained more meaningfully.