A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
& I'm advocating for the removing of the obscenely-rich pensions given to his ilk, as an equally-effective means of reducing economic "waste".
Notice how they'll butcher those below them, but not tolerate their-own wealth to be even-reduced..
Narcissism's nature is indellible.
Carve it in G-D's eye, sociopath, let the world see the "soul" you commit..
_ /\ _
What an asshole.
~~Title and text seem to contradict each other, no? ~~
Nope, both are against giving meds to the elderly. What are you misunderstanding?
Hmm, the way I read the text it was Hendrik doing the underlining by pointing out the inhumanity of it all... I guess what's meant is that he is the example that underlines the inhumanity of it all. Okay :)
I guess that could be misinterpreted, but yeah, that sentence means that he is putting special attention on those measures, and doubling down on it by proposing even harsher measures.
In a paragraph below you have it clearer:
Speaking to the right-wing broadcaster Welt TV, he raised the question of whether elderly people should still be prescribed expensive medication. He said there are “phases in life when certain medications should no longer be used.” He cited the example of a 100-year-old man suffering from cancer and asked, “Do we really want to use these expensive drugs” in such a case?
You see that he is clearly advocating pro those inhumane changes.
As was the German way before... 😨😖
And yes, read the fracking article next time will ya! 😁
This is one of the things that while it's correct most people react very emotionally to the idea and for a politician it's better never to talk about it. What they are talking about is very similar to euthanasia that is legal and accepted in many countries. If a patient has no chance of survival it doesn't make much sense to spend a lot of money in prolonging his life for couple of days. What often happens is that people spend the last days so their lives in intensive care, in coma and on a ventilator. It just prolongs suffering as there is no chance for improvement. What he's getting wrong is the solution. Instead of restricting care they should implement robust system of DNRs/life testaments. Everyone should decide what type of care they want to receive, doctors should be legally obligated to follow those directions and it should not be possible to override it by family members. A lot of people would still be against it because death is a very emotional topic but at least it doesn't sound evil.
Euthanasia implies consent. Without consent, it's murder.
Have you even read what I said?