Yeah, correct in theory, but I assume that marauding Russian hords of forceible conscripted cannon fodder and imerperalistic nationalists in Russian leadership are not the kind of people who adhere to human rights when occupying and annaxing your country.

So maybe talk about the land bridge made of dead people in the Mediterranean which is constructed by frontex instead?

The German state or it’s institutions have repeatedly communicated that they consider the human rights granted by the Grundgesetz (constitution) to only be valid for German citizens. Even EU officials from Germany where subject of surveillance by German secret service with the legal argument of “Funktionsträger”, that by being a EU parliamentarian is a function which is discernable from the German citizen and therefore can be subject to surveillance. Human rights are an ideal which sometimes gets uphold by courts, not by politicians in rethoric, nor by government in practice. It’s performance.

The title is misleading. We don’t struggle with the AfD we have decided to ignore it the same way we ignored that an economy based on fossil fuel cars is not sustainable, the same way we ignored rotting and underfunded infrastructure, roads, rails, state and education institutions.

Well reading what’s actually is there and not what I already concluded to be there has never been my strong suit. The proposal feels like sidestepping the actual problem, that the rise of the far right must be countered, by putting a weak barr on political discussion and political discours to mitigate broader problems. Which to be fair is the politics of center parties.

I don’t argue for the implementation of the legal changes discussed in the article, I argue that we already have the required means.

I argue for using these means to protect from fascism.

The better political means would be to enact changes that fix stuff for people so they don’t get the feeling the only party that cares for them are fascist, but the topic is legal means.

As I wrote before, the infringement of human rights can be justified to protect others human rights. Barring people from voting for the prospect of genocide is a balanced approach I fully support.

How these legal instruments are used in practice is a different topic from what they are meant for.

Oligarchs are a societal problem which exists independent of constitutional balance of power. Since I try to argue within the idea of legal systems this seems to me as an unrelated, while still very real problem. But that must be dealt with outside of the question of the legality of political parties. To underline my intent here, I believe that the problem of oligarchy can be fixed by parties which adhere to the humanitarian political playing field which the constitution describes. This includes for example radical leftists that use the constitutional legal construct of seizing property in the name of the state (means of production aka money) from those who abuse the property.

Democracies don’t die because they restrict political speech based on a constitution which in the case of Germany is pretty solid, they die because they disservice their population while spouting nationalist or other BS and declaring everyone else the enemy and shifting the legal framework to dismental the rule of law.

The idea of cutting these parties and movements of from gaining political traction seems blatantly obvious to me.

Libertarian BS is not the same as Libertarism. People arguing for free speech which allows for speech which is anti-humanist is libertarian BS. Libertarism in itself is a problem because it advocates for the freedom of the individual over the freedom of the collective. Which some find attractive and I myself egoistic. But that is not the the point I’m trying to make here.

In a working legal system, in a constitutional framework of sperated powers within a democratic society we cannot allow BS in the political discours, because it aims to dismental the political discours. Similarly to playing chess with a geese, you will get bit.

The only political discussion I’m willing to have with fascists is over the barrel of a gun, but since the societal contract we are born into asks of me to give my ability to exercise violence in the the hands of the state so it excersises violence in the most just way possible I demand the legal ability and the application of those means to barr fascists from everything.

And that is the point here. Fascism is not a valid political opinion, it’s a crime. Other political or mixtures of religious and political thought qualify as well and I don’t want them anywhere near a parliament.

The point I don’t understand and that might be due to my mental limitations, is why would anyone want these in a political discussion. Why give those free speech that want to abolish it?

The abuse of these legal frameworks is a problem, and that is real, but their existence is required to have a line of defense against anti-humanist BS. And towards the point that you are arguing in favor of civil rights and not for the AfD, it’s still an argument that allows for the AfD and I won’t accept that as a basis for discussion of fundamental legal frameworks of a society.

Niemals wieder is not only a phrase it must be the very spirit of any serious democratic framework and rule of law.

Why are you arguing in favor of parties that want to infringe on people’s human rights?

I fail to see how any movement of change within the spectrum of a constitution based on human rights would be negatively affected by the deligtimisation of anti-humanist factions.

What do oligarchs have to do with that anyway?

How does any of that lead into dictatorship?

What about separation of power?

What about other means of political influence, like wide spread worker strikes, those wouldn’t be affected by the dismantling of political parties.

Why the fuck are people spouting libertarian nonsense in defense of fascism?

And pertaining to the gulag: no you.

No. The tolerance paradox generally is interpreted to mean that any tolerant society that tolerates intolerance destroys itself. See Wikipedia first paragraph tolerance paradox. Any serious democratic constitution bases itself on humanism and the idea that human rights cannot be infringed on except to protect the human rights of others. Allowing participants in political discussions who question that is outright fucking stupid. They must be excluded, deconstructed, and fought in the streets if necessary. Using the US as an example for anything democracy related is on the same level as using China as an example for well implemented communism.

That’s astonishing bullshit. There is already a process for ban political parties with political alignments incompatible with the constitution, which has to be initialized by o e of the two chambers of parliament and decided by the constitutional court. Having a political instrument in addition to that will automatically reduce the hurdle of dismantling political movements, for blurry definitions of “sufficient amount of extremists in a party”.

Nah, that’s the paradox of tolerance. A democracy cannot allow fascists to run without dismantling itself. Also fascism and other “political views” that dehumanize are not a political view, they are chargeable criminal offenses in many countries.

Which one? The one that blow up or the other which also blow up?

Plastic in my gut

Plastic in my lung

And the other too

Plastic in my blood

Plastic plastic

Plastic in my wiener

And in my seed

Plastic in my telephone

Plastic in my brain

Plastic plastic

Brain plastic

[Edit formatting is hard]

It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

It’s still in the current version of the TOS without a direct explanation which can be found anywhere close to it. This is plain bad from a communication stand point.

To be fair nobody asked Mozilla to serve a stupid and detached statement without contextualizing what they meant or try to achieve.

[Edit] it feels like they’re asking for the outrage. You can’t just drop assurances of not selling data without explaining if your crowd is privacy aware. You can’t take broad licenses from your users if you don’t explain for what they are for. Having plaintext comment next to the lawyer speak would have fixed all that and none of this had to be this shitty. [/Edit]

Best comment I read in a long time ❤️

Workers unaware of class struggle

Because nobody knows about these, a “developed” country won’t “humble” itself with buying things designed for underdeveloped regions, cities are designed around cars, car manufacturing is still a major backbone to most western industries and politics won’t risk jobs by providing alternatives, it’s “unamerican”, leftist propaganda and queer, etc. In short politics is not rational, because humans are not rational. And that is neither good nor bad, it’s how humans work. To sell them these ideas you must make people excited for these changes and we are pretty fucking far from getting people excited about changing for a better, greener society.

Edit: autocorrect thinks I’m short

Fröhlicher Sonneumrundungstag!

🥳🎊🎉🦄

🦈🦈🦈