frazw

joined 2 years ago
[–] frazw@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Relax, don't worry it's below the all important 50k paedo protection threshold so we can talk about this and everything else for the time being

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

If James bond is in the mix, what about goldeneye?

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

That's what I was thinking. Meta is poison.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Well not taking anything from him, but with so many people involved in a TV production I think it would have come out in some form that dissent was being suppressed.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 89 points 4 weeks ago (11 children)

Banning something is a sure fire way to give it oxygen. Streisand effect

The problem Trump has in doing this type of suppression is that it gains more attention and riles people up more than if he had let the interview air. Sure the interview might have said things he didn't want to be said, but now he has made this a much bigger issue and he looks weak because he is scared at the mere prospect of some words being uttered.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

"To impress a chick..."

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's about permission. These guys have always been there harbouring their evil thoughts but the system never allowed them to indulge.

Now they have permission.

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

Maybe I was not eloquent enough, but I don't object to the research being done. I think though that the result is the expected one and therefore it is not noteworthy enough to post on here. Doubtless this paper with end up highly cited.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago (16 children)

I mean this feels like an obvious result. Are we thinking this is ground breaking?

Like comparing 3 ways of making a table, hand tools, power tools or paying someone to make it for you. Then asking which required the most effort.

I mean I know it's important to confirm even expected results but this feels so intuitive.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I meant that I was being sarcastic in my first post, not you. I was copying what Trump said about Greenland and Denmark landing a boat there and applying it to california to try to show how ridiculous his position is. I was not trying to be factually accurate. I was trying to poke fun at him. It seems it was either not as obvious as I thought or just a bad joke.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Ok, I'm not trying to be factually accurate. I'm trying to point out the idiocy of trump's comments

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Ah I see, you were thinking the sarcastic response to trumps factually inaccurate statement should be factually accurate. Got it.

 

Democratic political strategy

 

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 ›