[-] frazw@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

Ok so can we start with a really rough day of policing election fraud, inciting insurrection, business fraud, not paying suppliers, sexual assault, stealing classified government documents, and shitting your pants in public. Then maybe the word will get out and we won't have to go further.

... Ok maybe not the last one. That's just unfair.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago

Maybe if they weren't destabilising the world, their citizens might feel happier about bringing children into it.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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 35 points 4 days ago

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 33 points 4 days ago

The problem with conservatism though is that their voters will think this is a good thing. Taxes are bad full stop, so these companies are clever by lowering their tax bill. They don't see that the salaries are obscene. Then they complain about public services and infrastructure being bad.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago

I love to see free speech absolutism being so unshakable.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

I'd buy that for a dollar

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 196 points 3 weeks ago

"I SAVED YOUR LIFE !"

"You ruined my death"

Incredible

57
submitted 3 weeks ago by frazw@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

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?

140
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by frazw@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

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

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 134 points 6 months ago

Wow, that's great!! So I guess all the chemicals coming out of the coal, oil and gas fired power plants will be stopped then.

CO2, NOx, particulates all are chemicals and are all intentionally released during combustion.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 142 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Why is it OK for an American company to headquarter in one state then cherry pick another in which to file a lawsuit? Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based. It seems weird to choose the set of laws you want to be judged by when the defendant cannot do the same.

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 142 points 11 months ago

1: "... and then we'll be able to stop terrorist attacks. Simple".

2: “ok but if you put a back door into encryption, won't others be able to find it?"

1: "no we'll be the only ones with the key. Great huh?“

2: "and you don't think the key will be leaked or be hacked?"

1: "I said we'll be the only ones with the key."

2: "so what's your plan to make sure the key stays secure"

1: "..."

2: "what's your contingency plan if the key *is * hacked or leaked?"

1:"..."

1: "I SAID WE'LL BE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE KEY. "

2: "..."

1: "don't you want to protect our children ??"

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 162 points 1 year ago

My gut tells me they are not deleted but rather simply no longer publicly available. Can't have these pesky AI bots training for free.

view more: next ›

frazw

joined 1 year ago