• Political labels are pointless. Because the meaning changes depending on the perspective of the person giving the definition.

Words do have meaning, political labels included, changing meaning of them depending on the context is usually a sign of dishonest arguments. ‘Left’, ‘right’, ‘progessive’ ’ conservative’ and the like are defined terms that carry meaning. People trying to change those are most often trying to shift the perception of reality, for example calling Hitler ’ left wing’ is clearly revisionist nonsense trying to white wash their own agenda.

• “Conservatives” ala Donald Trump, MAGA, Ted Cruz. Would be better described as "Regressives ". (Because they pine for time that didn’t really exist in the 20th Century).

From Wikipedia: Conservatism has varied considerably as it has adapted itself to existing traditions and national cultures.[…] Conservatism may be either libertarian or authoritarian,[14] populist or elitist,[15] progressive or reactionary,[16] moderate or extreme.[17]

Simply put ‘Conservative’ is just the family name, the currently governing conservative flavor in the US you could call regressive, true, but in other areas of the world you might not. Edit: reading back I realized, that was what you were saying already

• Dismissive terms are all that you need to sway the opinion of a trumper (call something “woke” and BAM!. You’ve convinced them.).

No argument here. Punchlines are always easy especially if they meet frustrated minds.

• All USA media talking heads (specifically talking about podcasters and news shows, not talking about non verbal). Are propaganda which its users are addicted to. (Outrage addiction)

It’s a lot more complicated than that I’d say, but a lot of it fits the description, fair enough.

• The word “Christian” is now synonymous with hate and bigotry. I’ve made the distinction to now call people who are religious (Christianity) “Followers of Christ”.

Similar to the first point ‘Christian’ is just the family name, I think what you’re trying to describe are ‘Christian nationalists’, with emphasis on nationalist.

I haven’t paid much attention but from what I can gather it used to be a ‘legitimate’ conservative community, where some people posted outrageous bs, think of reddit s r/thedonald sub. A couple of days ago some people noticed that there are no mods anymore in the community, for whatever reason, so the shit posting, cons trolling began and the community all of a sudden bloomed.

I’d reckon there aren’t many of them original folks around anymore, thankfully. Just scroll down, it was a very trashy community, celebrating deaths from miscarriages and such.

Yeah, there were some real conservative views on what counts as art or education and what does not that influenced that decision I figure.

It’s silly regardless on both sides in my personal view. Like yeah it’s a little silly to not allow it, since the law would easily have allowed for it but also - it’s a Swastika, I’m fine in a video game without it, I’m not gonna die on that specific hill for sure.

Does “anti-constitutional” mean against the German constitution specifically, or the concept of constitutions?

Specifically the German constitution. Or as also worded in the law “the free democratic basic order of the FRG” -“die freiheitlich demokratische Grundordnung der BRD”.

What this phrase means specifically is defined by decisions of the federal constitutional court and includes things like basic human rights, checks and balances, the independence of courts, the multi party system etc.

Disrupting or trying to abolish those basic democratic laws is considered as trying to build a dictatorship or other form of unjust system.

I don’t know the specifics about the KPD case but there are German communist parties, for example the DKP. It’s just that the KPD is considered undemocratic.

“Staying alive” or “, Highway to hell” both have about the right beat for CPR

There’s plenty of “fair use” cases which would allow it.

§86a STGB allows for the use of “symbols of anti-constitutional organizations” in cases of:

• art (e.g. the movie “Downfall”)
• scientific research
• education
• news or other broadcast (covering Nazi Protests in the US for example, German news station don’t have to censor the Swastika flags or the like)

And probably applying in this case - in protesting said anti-constitutional organizations, for example a crossed out Swastika as a form of protest against Nazis is still very much legal.

Most important is the intent. If you plan to use those symbols with the intent of furthering the ideology of anti-constitutional organizations, it is probably forbidden. The intention has to be clearly against those organizations, otherwise it might be actionable.

Btw the communist party of Germany, the KPD is also considered an anti-constitutional organization and therefore it’s symbols are forbidden in the same way.

One of my teachers was re-educated that way, from left handed to right handed and he hated it. But he could write mirrored with his left hand perfectly, which was an amazing feat. Sometimes he would write on the chalk board with both hands, the same word but mirrored, that was pretty cool.

Meanwhile, zero actual evidence for DPRK attacking Ukraine, but I guess that’s not going to stop western smoothbrains from talking about it.

I forgot we live in “what I don’t like is obviously not true” land here, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, for example actual footage of North Korean soldiers arriving in Russian training camps, Putin himself doesn’t even denies it, but anything to lick some boot I guess.

You’re not arguing in good faith, as exemplified by your double standards regarding foreign involvement, so I know that you’re gonna write something about “manipulated footage”, ask for sources you could easily Google yourself and overall try to move the overall framing of the conversation to something else because the exchange of information is not the point for you.

I have neither the strength nor the patience to argue with utterly deranged idiots whose worldview would make Marx roll over in his grave.

From:

Last I checked it was NATO that started launching missiles into Russia escalating the conflict, but do go on champ.

To:

One problem being that Ukraine isn’t a member state. 🤡

So which one is it?

Would you also say that North Korea is attacking Ukraine since it’s North Korean artillery shells being lobbed into Ukraine?

ze button and launching ze nukes.

But I’m Le tired.

Have a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILE!

My grandpa took issue with the seagulls harassing everything else in his backyard, so he bought a slingshot and shot them with grapes “They don’t get hurt by a squishy grape, they get scared and the pigeons are happy about the grapes”

Only tangentially related -

I once read a book by a Holocaust survivor where he said (paraphrased) that the really nice ones didn’t survive the camps - the ones giving away part of their rations, the ones giving away their blankets to the sick, the ones standing up for their fellows, the ones trying to help the weaker, they were the first ones to be shot, or going into the gas chambers, or dying of hunger or disease. And those willing to be selfish were the ones more likely to survive.

Obviously no judgement or blame either way, in situations like these you’ll have to do what’s necessary but that point of view hit me really hard at the time “the really nice ones didn’t survive the camps”.

It made me truly realize the horror those camps represented, they didn’t just take their belongings, or their lives, or their dignity - they robbed them of their humanity to the point where being nice to your fellow people would get you killed and that was a horrific aspect that never made it into my consciousness until I read that sentence " the really nice ones didn’t survive the camps."

You know what, I think I don’t actually need a trolly comment police in my life so off to my block filter you gooooo!!! Byyyyeeee <3

You can come up with a better reaction than the AIs can, give it a shot sometime.

As expressly asked for by you, you ding dong.

Haha you’re stupid, do better

*Does better

Haha you actually tried

Troll

I am deeply sorry for expressing the inner response I had upon reading these holy texts. I long to better myself and only wish that some day I might cross unto the plane of higher understanding only true masters of eloquency like you can achieve, so that I might not flood the sacred halls of understanding and wisdom with my measly attempts at conveying a feeling that overcame me. One can just dream of reaching such a form of enlightened humanity to not dirty this truly intellectual exchange of minds with such a lowly response. My regrets at such blasphemy in the face of these holiest forms of pursuit for true knowledge is unbearable. My only hope is that I have not hindered the epiphanies surely to blossom out of the riddle of the mysterious white box on the wall. Were it not for enlightened minds like yours, the world would surely crumble and collapse into nothingness and we all are deeply thankful for your selfless and brave acts against the evils of this world.

I will now retreat to silence in order to chastise myself, so that I might come out of this shameful exhibition of my intellectual shortcomings as a better person.

Fuck you! upvotes

I understand that now, my phrasing was poor and I also didn’t make it clear that I was trying to engage with the comment and underline the missing nuance and not with the conversation about walz, although i was also missing some nuance in my comment I agree.

You lost the crowd immediately

Yeah going back I can see that most didn’t make it past the first two sentences, that is on me. I guess after the first answers I was just angry people were unwilling to engage with the content of my comment, so I wasn’t able to see my own shortcomings without you pointing me at them.

I appreciate the insight and the kindness of encouraging me to reflect that instead of just piling on. Thank you!

I agree with all that you said.

I think the issue you’re running into is that the point here is Walz is being subjected to ad hominem to distract from a broader discussion on the nature of genocide because such discussions are bad for Israel and their conservative benefactors in the US.

Ah yeah that makes sense, your rephrasing made me understand the issue.

The Holocaust is unique in a particular sense, but that is not what Walz is talking about; in the context he is speaking, the Holocaust is not unique. Essentially, the Holocaust, as a vivid and well-documented case study, can and should be a window into the broader history of genocide and human rights abuse.

I understand, I was trying to point out that nuance is important in that instance, the uniqueness of the event is a good cautionary tale and to diminish that into a too broad of a “genocide blanket” would take away from the unique problems genocide projects into our modern world.

Similar to how antisemitism is a form of racism but in its “design” it is still a unique form of racism.

Although my attempt was way less eloquent than yours.

Thank you, that was the first comment that actually engaged with what I tried to say.

Sure whatever you want to believe, I gave up on this thread having any sort of constructive argument or insight. Didn’t even have to be valuable insight, but there’s nothing here to be found.

Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?

No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.