frazw

joined 1 year ago
[–] frazw@lemmy.world 16 points 5 hours ago

How do you know they are wrong?

Just kidding

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 188 points 3 days ago (5 children)

"I SAVED YOUR LIFE !"

"You ruined my death"

Incredible

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Really? I just wrote a big long reply before I realised all I need to say is that you are on the verge of having your first female president and you want to wallow in the fiction that the bad guys represent not just the USA consensus, but the whole world? You know they don't. Chances of a female leader in the USA in 1920s? Zero. 2020s? You've already had one female politician who won the popular vote in 2016 and now have one who might win the whole thing. If you are willing to look outside the USA you might notice there are a few counties who already beat you to it... by decades. While things are by no means equal. Stop acting like we've made no progress.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I don't know if I'm a millennial or generation x

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

And maybe this answer is kinda what I was thinking of. The justification your are supplying about the diminished influence of record labels makes sense and logically I can see that probably means the sound of the decades I listed was less organic and more manufactured. I also feel that there is probably less air for experimental genres to establish and become dominant like in the past.

 

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?

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

Only if you suck until the creamy goodness reaches your lips.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Thank you but if the discussion does start going toxic, please do take it down.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

P.s. I updated the title to make it clearer that I do not wish to conflate the two

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I did not mean to imply that supporting Israel's right to exist as a state means you must support their actions or vice versa. It is not intended to be a loaded question.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?

I would argue that the Geneva convention is as much about protecting the humanity of adherants as it is about protecting the lives of the innocent.

If you sign up to it, you should not be considering the actions of your enemy in deciding whether to adhere to it or not. Yes the realities of war blur the lines, but as someone else said, if you become a monster to defeat the monster, you still lost.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is the kind of response I was looking for.

I'm not seeking to pile on the anti Israel sentiment but to genuinely understand what the basis for the Israeli position and supporters of it might be.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

No I'm genuinely interested in how people rationalise the actions of Israel against the articles of the Geneva convention. There have been some thoughtful answers already which I appreciate.

 

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 ›