Takapapatapaka

Haha you're right I do Thx for sharing this :D

Im 25 so slowly leaving the young person sphere, but I do have CDs and I did buy some at concerts.

Im a metalhead, so it was mostly for metal bands, and maybe this is specific for this genre, but every show i went to, I saw CDs being sold. I think out of 20-25 concerts, i bought 5-6 CDs, that i mostly listen to in my car. Two of them were signed by the band, so this was one more reason to buy it.

When I don't listen to metal, im into folk, rap or electro. I do have some folk CDs, that i listen to with my parents. But for rap and electro, everything happens online. My brother released a first rap EP, and printing on a CD was a very distant option for him and his crew, like 'this would be cool but that' s too much for now'. On the opposite, my friend who have a metal band immediatly started a crowdfunding to get their first EP printed on a small scale

I get that people may be bored of politics, this is legitimate. I disagree that it is a Lemmy's problem though. Imho, decentralization and leaving Reddit are political decisions, opposing the up hand of big companies on social medias. So it seems to me that it is in the nature of Lemmy and Fediverse to be politically oriented. And even if you disagree that it is in their nature, maybe we can agree that it is logical that they tend to gather politically motivated peoples, as apolitical folks will probably stay on mainstream medias.

Yeah, sorry for the long answer mb

Agree with you on most points, especially that we should be cautious with the parallel we draw : we can and sometimes should draw them, but always keeping in mind the risk of promoting or minimizing horrors. My previous answer did not promote that enough, you're right reminding it.

The question "is it comparable " always kinda triggers me because the answer is always yes.

Comparing does not mean saying X and Y are the same, nor are equal. It means evaluating how much X and Y are similar or different on various point. Like "Taylor Swift is a human and so is Julius Caesar. But Taylor Swift is alive, and Julius Caesar is not". This is comparing, according to what I know of the term. So in theory, everything is comparable : when we say that something is not comparable, we mean that there is a difference on a specific point that should obfuscate all common traits we can find. In our case, it seems to be the death toll.

First I'm hoping you are in full support of Palestina and that deprecate Israel (different subject but if you value the death toll that much in political analysis, this would necessarily lead to this, which is fine by me)

Now on the subject of USA death toll, counting is kinda hard. Should we take into account the strategically kinda useless atomic bombs dropped at the end of the war? Should we take into account every war and massacre caused indirectly by the CIA? Should we take into account death caused by American weapons? Should we take into account death caused by capitalism (though obviously China "communist" dictature helped there too, so maybe this one would complicate things)?

I'm profoundly anti-state, so as much anti west imperialism than anti east imperialism, and maybe this is a bias for me. But to my eyes, this is comparable (not the same, sure, but comparable, even if it is to conclude that communist dictators were more cruals and usa more sneaky)

Still vote for them if you need though, just important to know who they are than blindfolding imo

Upvote for the trump point, im with you on this one Other questions are meaningless here imo, just because X did not commit the crimes Y did, does not mean they should be treated differently if they did crimes of their own

(Still better voting blue than voting red though, fuck trump)

Hello, did not understand everything so sorry in advance if i say anything dumb In France, we have a President, elected by every adult citizen. In theory, he does not lead the country, and chooses a Prime Minister for this task, who then comes up with a government. In practice though, the President (Macron for now) has a lot more power over the PM because he can revoke and name another Prime Minister. And as the Assembly also have the power to revoke PM, President generally chooses someone that the majority in the Assembly will accept, to avoid instability. So currently, Macron is the President and holds practical power over politics, Prime Minister is currently Attal, and is kinda the second in hand of Macron, and as the Assembly seems to change right now, Macron will probably choose someone else as PM, probably someone from the left.

Je suis d'accord, notre système "semi" présidentiel me paraît un défaut Une des difficultés que j'ai rencontrées en en parlant autour de moi, c'est que ça facilite la lecture politique pour pas mal de gens, en polarisant autour des personnalités plutôt que des partis : à mon sens, c'est en bonne partie pour ça que des partis peuvent pâtir de l'image de leur leader (coucou Melenchon) et qu'on peut construire des partis autour d'une personne plutôt que d'idées (coucou Macron) On me dira que c'est aussi le cas dans les régimes parlementaires, avec lea premier.e ministres ou les leader de partis, mais je pense que le côté suffrage universel pour élire le président n'y est pas pour rien. Genre sur le papier c'est simple et efficace : on a tous et toutes voté pour, donc la personne est forcément légitime à tout diriger. Et derrière ça engendre des tensions au sein des partis, autour de qui est censé diriger, qui est légitime, etc.

I didn't watch tat much movies, but maybe you're right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I'm also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).

I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it's more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I'm wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.

I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by "capturing hearts and minds" if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.

So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.

Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.

Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it's really reasonable.

For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it's not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.

Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that's probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)