frazw

joined 1 year ago
[–] frazw@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Why do people insist on saying "The American experiment"??

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 124 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Conspiracy theorists are not about the actual theories. They are about being special. They are smart and figured out monkeys have been influencing the course of human politics since the roman empire. *They * are the only ones who "get it" that bic biro pens have finger print scanners the CIA uses to locate disobedient citizens.

As soon as it becomes confirmed, they are no longer special, because everyone "gets it".

When they say "wake up sheeple", they wouldn't know what to do if you "woke up".

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok so I apologise for my earlier snarky reaction but I felt zahille7's response was somewhat condescending. Particularly since it is terminology recognised by three major English dictionaries, one of which is widely regarded as the leading authority on the English language... https://www.oed.com/dictionary/inverted-comma_n?tl=true https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/inverted-commas https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inverted-commas

... So just because you have never heard of something, doesn't give you licence to be rude to someone or talk down to them as if they are stupid for their choice of phrasing. Or maybe it just means you aren't British...

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago (14 children)

It's not "famous" that should be in inverted commas, but "artist".

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I know what the point was, but Biden is included as if he is part of some political dynasty. He was VP. A very normal situation, 19 out of 49 have run for president. It's like being promoted through the ranks until you get to the top. Isn't that kinda normal in most careers?

So why is it "insanely improbable" for Biden, someone who qualified for the job over decades, to be "chosen" as opposed to anyone else.

We aren't talking here about how much cash it requires to become president which raises the bar above most people's head.we are taking about political dynasties.

So I say again, including Biden as if it is some statistical anomaly or stranglehold on politics is disingenuous, especially if you exclude Harris.

Her situation of running for president after serving as vice president is EXACTLY the same as Biden unless you want to split hairs and say he served 2 terms and her only 1. So if you want to say Biden was given a silver spoon, so was she.

Biden is not a dynasty. But if you insist he is, so is Harris, and that makes the original premise flawed.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I don't think it's really fair to include "Biden" alongside "Bush" and "Clinton" and NOT include "Harris", just to make a point. The point is the Bush and Clinton represent two people each, a dynasty as it were. Biden is just one person. You might as well add then Harris since she has served as VP just like Biden, or Trump but I get the feeling this is intended to somehow make the statement that Harris represents a new breed of politics, a break from the old. That may or may not be true, but it doesn't hinge on this meaningless metric.

"since 1981 there has never been an election without a Bush, Clinton, Biden, Trump or Harris."

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

I love to see free speech absolutism being so unshakable.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

You think the only reason people could find destructive, violent behaviour to be unusual or difficult to understand is because they have no passion in their own lives?

I'm just a little sad that there are people in the world who have grown up in such violent, loveless homes that they can't conceive of finding violent behaviour over a sports game disgusting.

I wonder how many of wives and partners who get the shit kicked out of them when their passionate "alpha" male's favourite team loses would agree with you. Oh it's OK, he had just lived such a full, passionate life that he sometimes loses his self control for a moment.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They wanted the IP not the staff.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago

How do you know they are wrong?

Just kidding

 

Every decade has its musical style that generally makes it easy to place what decade a song was written in if you haven't heard it before.

40s big band

50s rock and roll

60s essentially has its genre named after the decade or at least I can't think of anything I'd call a genre.

70s punk and beginnings of heavy metal, disco

80s electro synth, rap

90s grunge, dance, R&B, trance

Etc etc. Obviously these don't entirely define the music of the decade but are highly recognisable genres that can more often than not pinned down to a decade.

So my question is, since the 2000s I don't see as much differentiation but that might be because I'm too old (44) and not as exposed to be music as I was in my teens, so help me pretend I'm "hip" and "with it" by giving me some clues. I'm curious to know what you think defines the music of the 2020s, what defines the 2010s and what defines the 2000s. I.e. When someone says they are going to listen to noughties music what do they put on? Etc. Or have we reached a point where music has been explored to the point new genres are much rarer to establish?

 

The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

view more: next ›