- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
What’s next? North Korea as chair of the human rights forum?
Israel for world peace!
America for workers rights!
Turkmenistan for world trade!Russia for LGBT+ rights
Marocco for the Decolonization Committee! Luxemburg for the United Nations Population Fund!
Fucking stupid timeline we’re trapped in
“I’d rather be sliding”
I made a nicer shirt than that a while ago, but it’s what today’s craptacular search gives up.
Reality really is beyond satire.
SatireSartre : Hell is other people…
Man, the world’s gonna be a MUCH better place when the House of Saud finally goes the way of the dinosaur.
Unless it’s just replaced with something objectively worse…which wouldn’t be the first time in history something like that happened.
They already massacred Yemen as a monarchy while their crown prince is known for dismembering journalists, they’re about as bad as it gets.
Maybe I’m just cynical, but I can imagine many, many ways it could get worse and only a few of them involve nuclear or bio weapons.
This oil fields aren’t moving. If the Saus family is ousted, we just talk to the new family
What I would to see is a Saud realizing he’s on the outs, crying on the tarmac. But that’s just mean
This oil fields aren’t moving.
Yes they are. We’ve been moving them out of the ground and into the atmosphere for almost ninety years.
I don’t want to nitpick, because everyone gets what you’re trying to say.
But dinosaurs still exist today: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
I would also be fine with them evolving into something more relevant to the times
it may be hard to believe but womens rights have been progressing steadily. link
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a long long way to go, but I’m glad they at least seem to be heading in a positive direction.
They already did, but some other Saudis realised those dinosaur bones had oil and they went full circle again.
I believe one day in the future, maybe by aliens hands or maybe by some incredible new discovery, religion will cease to exist and the world will be finally peacefull with people working for the betterment of their lifes not praying for a ghost
edit: a religion plague that kills only dumb people also works lol
This will not happen, as long as other people find a way to use “religion” for power, influence or financial gain. Some people already thought that the mass adaption of the internet would be the end of religion, scams and other fraud preying on the gullible minds, because people could just read up what the catch is and not fall for it, right?
Unfortunately the scams just adapted, made their own flashy homepages that mostly outranked critical information and people just choose to belive what they want to belive.
We didn’t know how dumb people really was.
The UN is a captured organization. It no longer serves its purpose, and is now an arm of the oil producing countries state departments more than anything. I don’t have a good suggestion for what to replace it with but it’s sure AF not worthy of being respected any longer.
The UN’s purpose is
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”- United Nations Charter, Chapter I: Article 1: Section 1
the other sections reference international friendship and equal rights, but section 1 is the meat f why it exists, the UN was created after two World Wars, it’s primary goal is to prevent a third and has so far been overwhelmingly successful.
I don’t think peace through submission was the original goal here though is the point
Kinda was. That’s why the UK and France have a permanent seat on the UNSC but Germany and Japan categorically do not.
Yeah peace through making the bad guys submit. Not rolling over and just letting them take whatever they want because “well if we actually did anything it would cause a scene”
Like a cop seeing someone break a law and going “wow that sure sounds like a lot of paperwork” and them walking away
We’ve avoided world wars by allowing conflicts to fester around the globe. I’d be curious whether the death toll would be higher had there been a world war, but I guess there’s still plenty of people left to die in forgotten places like Sudan so the calculation will have to wait.
Pretty sure the fallout from WW3 is gonna hurt everyone everywhere…war in Sufan is still a pretty long way off from a death toll in the billions.
I’d rather the assholes of the world think they’re accomplishing something by writing bullshit resolutions rather than dropping bombs.
We just have to not take the UN seriously while still having the authoritarian assholes think the UN is serious business.
The Security Council is the only thing that ever really mattered anyway. Having the nuclear powers have to sit in a room together is important. The General Assembly has always been a clown show.
We have a bunch of alliances between democracies (NATO and other alliances) and the security council because we have to negotiate with the authoritarians with nukes. The minor despots can have the UN General Assembly to clown around in. Better to have petty narcissistic dictators throw their tantrums in the UN GA rather than expressing their feelings with their military.
Did it ever serve it’s purpose?
I’m young and ignorant, so I don’t know what I’m talking about and I’d be open to anyone posting any links for me to learn from. But I remember being in middle and high-school 20 years ago, and learning about the UN’s “millennium goals” that they were trying to achieve by 2015. And they were… awesome. Like the real definition of awesome. They were awe-inspiring. And they made me hopeful as a young teen. And I remember when 2015 came and went and they hadn’t even come close to meeting those goals. And I remember thinking, okay, well, they’ll keep trying. But they didn’t keep trying, and in fact I never heard anyone talk about the millennium goals ever again. And then 2016 came, and at least from my American-centric viewpoint, the world has been on a rapid decline since then. And I am honestly so hopeless, like rock bottom hopless, like, I don’t know what the future is gonna be, but i can’t imagine a good one if we stay on this path, and I don’t know what to do, because I’m not a world leader.
I used to have so much respect and admiration for the UN but they’re just as garbage as every other power in the world. This post is a fucking joke. My ex partner is from Saudi. I remember excitedly asking him about his opinion and his families opinion when women were first given permission to drive and he was DISGUSTED. Said “this should have happened ages ago, Saudi is using this as a PR move, why should we be happy that women are just now getting this right?”
Anyway. Sorry for the long response to your sarcastic comment. Have a good day. Xoxo.
Sorry that your faith in supranational organisations was so thoroughly squashed. It do be like that though. For a little while, Truman hoped that all nuclear weapons could be put under the control of the UN. Then that went belly up when the soviet union under Stalin learned how to build them. Theres always the IAEA though.
Truman never wanted that. He flew around knowing that his nukes gave him an advantage over the USSR. From this paper, it is clear that Truman wanted to maintain an atomic monopoly and as for Joint Chiefs of Staff, they didn’t want to share the nuclear secrets with any organization including the UN.
No third world war yet. So i assume yes.
That is an incredibly low bar to judge any organization. There are multiple conflicts going around the world that UN has done nothing to do. When it comes to permanent members of the Security council, the UN is powerless. Heck, it is powerless if one of the permanent members decides to flex it’s muscles somewhere else geographically either.
Also, no world war is also largely due to presence of nukes with nations. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction prevents nations from going into full blown wars when 2 nuclear powers are involved.
The UN has the power the nations want to give it. And for now, its this. Dont complain about the UN, complain about our governments
The whole point was a united nation front to avoid another Nazi war, but they gave the blue hats no teeth. It served purpose for purpose sake but no real action
At one point I’m sure it was helpful to someone. Now it’s just a weapon the oil producing countries plus China of the world wield against the rest.
Any Expanse fans? We need James Holden to stick his dick in it.
Amnesty is not a news source. They are fundraising, here. The article is devoid of necessary contextual information.
UN Commission executive boards are elected not appointed positions. In some UN bodies, chairs rotate in alphabetical order, but not this one. Maybe there was a midterm vacancy and the seat was filled by an appointment process? What is that process? When is the earliest the seat could be recalled?
I can’t find anything about their process.
There’s really not much about it, the UN page is here: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/gender-equality
Mostly they seem to have conferences every decade or so and occasionally declare a “International day for X”. Seems like a PR kind of thing to me.
But at any rate it’s a bad look for the UN. Indicates a dysfunction in the organization that whatever process they have allowed this to happen. I mean it looks like it’s a PR campaign that actually makes them look bad. If Guterres was competent he’d shut the thing down entirely and start another one that didn’t suck. But since he’s an idiot and he will probably just say it’s somehow Israel’s fault.
Page 22 re: election of officers.
https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n97/775/21/pdf/n9777521.pdf
Amnesty is not a news source.
It is providing news.
They are fundraising, here.
Their website has a donate button. This article doesn’t ask for donations, although it does advertise another Amnesty report.
What? They literally aren’t journalists and this literally isn’t journalism. It’s click bait to get people to click that donate button.
They may not be journalists, but this certainly is news.
“They campaign against abuses of human rights worldwide.”
The information shared seems to be high-quality and relevant to their cause. It certainly isn’t “10 bad things about Saudi Arabia, number 7 will shock you”.
Yeah it’s not serious news for serious people. It’s click bait. Not as transparent as your example perhaps, but not much different.
If the article is clickbate then it should be easy to respond to the serious points (for serious people) that:-
Saudi Arabia’s 2022 Personal Status Law, creates gender-based discrimination in
- marriage,
- divorce,
- child custody,
- inheritance.
Saudi Arabia’s authorities supress freedom of expression including expressing support (ie tweeting about) for women’s rights.
Saudi Arabia must demonstrate its commitment through concrete actions domestically.
Those points are all true as far as I know.
Here you go, here’s what an actual article on this looks like.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/27/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission
Ironically your preferred article uses Amnesty “clickbait” International as one of it’s sources.
Right at the top of the guardian’s website it says “Support us now”. Doesn’t that, by your definition, make it clickbait?
Fair enough. If you want to solve the problem of gender equality, give it to the experts.
well, nobody ever complains (or they’ll die)
The UN: how can we be more of a joke to the world??
Oh oh, let’s appoint an atheist to the board of Islamic affairs!
Even then, I think an average atheist politician would handle Islamic affairs more fairly than an average Muslim politician would handle gender equality affairs, at least in most cases.
There is no atheist book that the atheist has to follow. The Quran, on the other hand, has misogyny kind of built into it, sadly.
Edit: I feel like I should add that this misogyny problem isn’t unique to Islam. The Abrahamic religions all have outdated takes on gender equality. I would have the same negative feelings about a devout Christian politician being put in charge of gender equality.
Hahahaha.
Klown world.
Well, if you want to know how gender inequality works, just ask the Saudis.
I guess the “freedom of the press” forum leadership spot was already taken?
Weren’t they head of the human rights council?
The UN is a joke
why am I not laughing???
It’s a bad joke.
The world is not even trying anymore
It’s getting harder and harder to make satire because it keeps becoming reality.
